Full text of "Distribution and status of bird, small mammal, reptile, and amphibian species, South Dakota Field Office - BLM"

See other formats

Distribution and Status of Bird, Small 
Mammal, Reptile, and Amphibian Species, 
South Dakota Field Office-BLM 

Prepared for: 

Bureau of Land Management 
South Dakota Field Office 

Prepared by: 

Daniel A. Bachen and Bryce A. Maxell 


Montana Natural Heritage Program 

a cooperative program of the 
Montana State Library and the University of Montana 

November 2014 



MONTANA 


Natural Heritage 
Program 





Distribution and Status of Bird, Small 
Mammal, Reptile, and Amphibian Species, 
South Dakota Field Office-BLM 

Prepared for: 

Bureau of Land Management 
South Dakota Field Office 

Agreement Number: 

L13AC00190 

Prepared by: 

Daniel A. Bachen and Bryce A. Maxell 




Natural Heritage 
Program 


The University of 

Montana 


© 2014 Montana Natural Heritage Program 

P.O. Box 201800 • 1515 East Sixth Avenue • Helena, MT 59620-1800 • 406-444-3290 


I 



This document should be cited as follows: 

Bachen, D. A, and B. A. Maxell. 2014. Distribution and status of bird, small mammal, reptile, and 
amphibian species. South Dakota Field Office-BLM. Report to the Bureau of Land Management, South 
Dakota Field Office. Montana Natural Fleritage Program, Flelena, Montana 25 pp. plus appendices. 

ii 



Executive Summary 


To date, federal lands administered by the 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in South 
Dakota have received limited attention for 
baseline inventories of nongame species 
including bird, terrestrial small mammal, bat, 
amphibian and reptile species. Documenting 
baselines for distribution, habitat association, 
and relative status of these species, particularly 
species listed as Sensitive by the BLM or rare, 
threatened, or endangered by the state, can aid 
in conservation of these species. To address 
this need we conducted structured surveys to 
document these species within BLM 
administered lands in western South Dakota, 
using point count surveys for birds, trap arrays 
for small mammals, passive acoustic bat 
detectors for bats, night time calling surveys for 
amphibians, and visual encounter surveys of 
wetlands for amphibians and reptiles. 

Using structured surveys over the spring and 
summer of 2014, we documented 100 bird 
species, including 13 listed as Sensitive by the 
BLM, 15 terrestrial small mammal species, 6 bat 
species, and 5 amphibian species, including 2 
Sensitive species. While conducting this work 
we also incidentally recorded 1,260 additional 
animal observations, including an additional 25 
bird species, 17 mammal species, and 8 reptile 
species. While conducting surveys for birds we 
documented several BLM Sensitive species of 
note, including the Sprague's Pipit (Anthus 
spragueii), Blue-Gray Gnatcatcher [Polioptila 
caerulea), Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus 
leucocephalus), and Baird's Sparrow 
(Ammodramus bairdii). Although we did not 
capture any Sensitive small mammal species, 
we did capture 2 species of shrew that 
represent significant records for the state. In 


central South Dakota we captured a Least 
Shrew [Cryptotis parva), which not only was the 
first record of the species in Stanley County, but 
also is one of the northern most observations of 
this specie in the state (Backlund 2002). In 
Northwest South Dakota we captured a shrew 
in sagebrush steppe that is likely a range 
extension for Montane Shrew (Sorex 
monticolus) or Dwarf Shrew (S. nanus), but are 
still working on definitive identification of this 
specimen. Although we documented several 
amphibian and reptile species listed as 
Sensitive, we documented one particularly rare 
species. In a small area of badlands in Western 
Butte County we incidentally encountered a 
Greater Short-horned Lizard [Phrynosoma 
hernandesi). In this area we also documented 
other rare species like the Sage Thrasher 
(Oreoscoptes montanus) and Brewer's Sparrow 
{Spizella breweri). 

For birds, we found the highest species diversity 
in Central South Dakota, where the prairie 
transitions to conifer forests, and the lowest 
species diversity within the conifer forests of 
the Black Hills, although this low diversity may 
reflect inclement weather conditions at the 
time of the survey. For small terrestrial 
mammals, we found the greatest species 
diversity in the conifer forests of the Black Hills 
and the lowest species diversity in the 
mixedgrass prairies of west central South 
Dakota. For bats, we found a cessation of 
activity at all five of our prairie dominated 
monitoring sites between December 2013 and 
March 2014. For amphibians, we detected the 
highest diversity of species in the mixedgrass 
prairies of central South Dakota in close 
proximity to the Belle Fourche River and the 



lowest species diversity in mixedgrass prairie in 
west central South Dakota. 

Overall, we found riparian woodland habitats to 
be extremely limited on BLM lands within the 
South Dakota BLM Field Office with some 
evidence of lack of regeneration of Plains 
Cottonwoods. We encourage management 
focus on this habitat to conserve existing 
riparian woodlands and restore riparian 
woodland areas that are becoming deforested 
by promoting management regimes that mimic 
the natural frequency and intensity of 
disturbances resulting from historical grazing, 


fire, and flood regimes. More broadly, 
management regimes that mimic the natural 
frequency and intensity of disturbances to all 
major habitat cover types should be 
encouraged across the South Dakota BLM Field 
Office. 

In order to make survey and detection 
information from this and other surveys more 
readily available for resource management 
plans and project-level planning, we have made 
it available online through the Montana Natural 
Fleritage Program's MapViewer 
http://mtnhp.org/mapviewer/ 


IV 


Acknowledgements 


We extend considerable thanks and 
appreciation to Rebecca Newton, wildlife 
biologist with the BLM South Dakota Field 
Office, for recognizing the importance of this 
project and shepherding the project through 
BLM channels. Thanks to Scott Blum, Braden 
Burkholder, and Shannon Hilty for analyzing bat 
calls, Scott Blum for appending the data to the 


Montana Natural Heritage Program's central 
animal observation database, and Paul 
Hendricks for originally proposing the project. 
Also we acknowledge and thank the South 
Dakota Game and Fish for allowing us to 
conduct small mammal trapping and amphibian 
and reptile surveys within the state. 


This project was supported by an agreement between the Bureau of Land Management and the 
Montana Natural Heritage Program, a cooperative program of the Montana State Library and the 
University of Montana (BLM L13AC00190) 


V 



Table of Contents 

Introduction 1 

Study Area 1 

Methods 11 

Bird Surveys 11 

Small Mammal Surveys 11 

Bat Surveys 12 

Amphibian and Reptile Surveys 12 

Incidental Observations 12 

Analysis 12 

Availability of Data 13 

Results 14 

Birds 14 

Mammals 18 

Amphibians AND Reptiles 20 

Literature Cited 24 

List OF Figures 

Figure 1. Primary survey areas in western South Dakota 2 

Figure 2. Butte County primary area survey locations 3 

Figure 3. Newell primary area survey locations 4 

Figure 4. Fort Meade primary area survey locations 5 

Figure 5. Lead primary area survey locations 6 

Figure 6. Southern Black Flills primary area survey locations 7 

Figure 7. Pedro primary area survey locations 8 

Figure 8. Mission Ridge primary area survey locations 9 

Figure 9. Two Rivers primary area survey locations 10 

List OF Tables 

Table 1. Bird surveys: effort 14 

Table 2. Bird species: number of points detected, incidental observations, 

proportion of primary areas detected, global and state ranks 15 

Table 3. Mammal surveys: effort 18 

Table 4. Mammal species: number of points detected, incidental observations, 

proportion of primary areas detected, global and state ranks 19 


VI 



Table of Contents (cont.) 


Table 5. Amphibian calling surveys: effort 21 

Table 6. Amphibian and reptile species: number of points detected, incidental observations, 

proportion of primary areas detected, global and state ranks 21 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Global/ State Rank Definitions A 1-3 

Appendix B: Echolocation Call Characteristics of Montana Bats B 1-6 

Appendix C: Baseline Status Indices of Detected Species: Bird Surveys C 1-13 

Appendix D: Baseline Status Indices of Detected Species: Small Mammal Surveys D 1-8 

Appendix E: Baseline Status Indices of Detected Species: Bat Surveys E 1-3 

Appendix F: Baseline Status Indices of Detected Species: Amphibian Calling Surveys F 1-2 


vii 



Introduction 

Federal lands administered by the South Dakota 
Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM), have received limited attention for 
baseline inventories of birds, small terrestrial 
mammals, bats, amphibians, or aquatic reptiles. 
Current observation data in the Montana 
Natural Fleritage Program (MNFIP) database for 
these lands are limited to a few bird point 
counts, miscellaneous small mammal surveys 
and incidental observations. Thus, there is a 
need for structured surveys to provide baseline 
information on the distribution and status of 
these taxa, especially those with state or global 
conservation status ranks of S1-S3 or G1-G3 
(Appendix A) and those listed as Sensitive by 
the BLM. This information is vital to broad- 
scale resource management plans and project- 
level decisions. 

To address this need we conducted structured 
surveys to document these species within BLM 
administered lands in western South Dakota, 
using point count surveys for birds, trap arrays 
for small mammals, acoustic bat detectors for 
bat, night time calling surveys for amphibians, 
and visual encounter surveys of wetlands for 
amphibians and reptiles. In addition to 
increasing the data within the MNPFI database, 
conducting surveys to document the 
distribution, habitat association, and relative 
status of species across state BLM lands will 
provide managers with valuable information 
that can be used to manage lands for the 
benefit of wildlife and the people that work and 
recreate on these lands. Documentation of 
species, particularly species that are listed as 
sensitive by the BLM can help guide land 
management planning and practices to facilitate 
conservation of these species. 


Study Area 

Across western South Dakota, the BLM 
manages lands in dispersed blocks of varying 
size. These lands are characterized by a 
diversity of soil types, elevations, geographic 
features, and vegetation cover. Except in the 
Black Flills, soils throughout the study area are 
predominantly clays and sandy loams. In the 
Black Flills soils are primarily rocky and silty 
loams, transitioning to sandy and clay loams in 
the foothills (NRCS 2014). Elevations range 
from approximately 500 m near the Missouri 
river in the east, to approximately 1,750 m in 
the Black Flills to the west. 

Lands in the north of the state are dominated 
primarily by mixedgrass prairie with sparse low 
shrub cover and occasional badlands. Lands in 
the Black Flills are dominated by conifer forests 
with occasional stands of aspen and open 
meadows surrounding woody riparian areas 
dominated by willows. At the southern end of 
the Black Flills the vegetation transitions to 
patchy ponderosa pine and juniper forests, 
interspersed with large areas of mixedgrass 
prairie. In the eastern foot hills of the Black 
Flills, conifer forests are interspersed with 
deciduous forests dominated by burr oak and 
there is a transition to mixedgrass prairie. In the 
central portion of western South Dakota the 
vegetation is primarily mixedgrass prairie in the 
uplands transitioning to juniper and ponderosa 
pine forests, and badlands in the river breaks, 
with deciduous forests dominated by 
cottonwoods in the river bottoms. In the east 
along the Missouri river, the uplands are 
primarily dominated by mixedgrass prairie and 
large areas have been converted to agriculture. 
The river breaks in this area are primarily 


1 



dominated by prairie, or badlands with sparse 
shrubland. Precipitation in all areas is greatest 
in the summer due to numerous 
thunderstorms. Within the study area, the Black 
Hills receive the most moisture, on average 76 - 
89 cm per year. The remainder of the area 
receives 25-38 cm of annual precipitation 
(NOAA2012). 

Based on these differences in habitat and 
geography we selected representative sampling 
areas, to ensure adequate documentation of 


wildlife species across BLM managed lands as 
these features can influence species distribution 
(Heisler et al. 2013). We selected these 
primary sampling areas based on 2 criteria: first 
that there was a relatively large block or blocks 
of BLM managed land in the area (> 3 km^) with 
road access, and second that these lands were 
representative of the surrounding habitat and 
unique from the other primary areas. Based on 
these criteria we selected 8 areas within the 
state (Figure 1). 


Primay Area 
Highways 
BLM Lands 
County 


Butte County Primary Area 



Newell County Primary Area 


0 


Mission Ridge Primary Area 

a 


Lead Primary Area' 


Two Rivers Primary Area^ 

^ Q^ort Meade Primary Area^— ^ Primary Area 




Southern Black Hills Primary Area 


0 12 5 25 50 Kilometers 

1 i I t I I I i I 


> 

W-^F 


Figure 1. Primary survey areas in western South Dakota 


2 


Butte County Primary Survey Area 

This area is in northwestern Butte County and the southern portion of Harding County (hereafter 
referred to as Butte County primary area) (Figure 2). It is approximately 1,230 km^ in size and is 
characterized by rolling hills with ephemeral creeks and numerous stock reservoirs. The primary 
vegetation communities are mixedgrass prairie with sparse sagebrush steppe in the uplands and cotton 
wood and green ash stands along some riparian areas. The soils here are primarily clays. 



12 KilQfTwtvrs 


▲ Amphi&isn Calling Points 
# Mammal Trap Lines 
Bad Ponns 

9 Vteuai Enoountef Surveys 
□□ Pnmay Area 
^ Towns 

BIM Lands 
County Boundaries 
Roads 
Wtsler 


Figure 2. Butte County primary area survey locations 


3 


Newell Primary Survey Area 

This area is east of Newell in southeastern Butte County (Figure 3). It is approximately 120 km^ in size, 
and characterized by rolling hills, plains, and breaks dominated by mixed grass prairie, with occasional 
stock reservoirs. The soils here are primarily clays. 





Amphibian Calling Pointa 
Mammal Trap Linas 
Bird PcNnis 

Visual Encountar SurvayS 
Pnmay Araa 
Towns 
BLM Lands 
County Boundanas 


Roads 

water 


Figure 3. Newell primary area survey locations 


4 


Fort Meade Primary Survey Area 

This area is outside of Sturgis in western Meade County (Figure 4). It is relatively small, approximately 30 
km^ in size, and is located at the transition of the Black Flills to the eastern prairie. The northern portion 
of this area is dominated by mixedgrass prairie, with occasional reservoirs and small streams, and bur 
oak stands. The central and southern portions of this area are rugged with numerous small mountains 
and sandstone breaks. There are occasional areas of mixedgrass prairie, but this portion of the area is 
dominated by ponderosa pine forests with burr oak and ash stands along small creeks and cotton wood 
forests along larger waterways. The soils here are primarily clay loams and sandy loams. 



Figure 4. Fort Meade primary area survey iocations 


5 



Lead Primary Survey Area 

This area is in the north central Black Hills in central Lawrence County near the towns of Lead and 
Deadwood (Figure 5). It is approximately 70 km^ in size and is rugged and dominated by conifer forest 
with occasional stands of aspen. Along waterways there are wet meadows dominated by brome grasses 
and willows. The soils of this area are primarily rocky and loamy. 



Slacktail 


X^ntrai 


[terravitle 


Ruma 


# MammU Trap Lir>M 
O Bird Points 

I I PrlmAyAfea 

^ TcMins 

BLM Lands 
County Bourxlarits 
WBt»f 
Roads 


3 Ksometers 


Figure 5. Lead primary area survey locations 


6 


Southern Black Hills Primary Survey Area 

This area is located in the southern Black Hills west of Hot Springs in southern Custer and northern Fall 
River Counties (Figure 6). It had two areas of BLM managed lands: one 8 km^ block located in 
southeastern Custer County; and the Fossil Cycad National Monument, is located off Highway 18 
between Hot Springs and Edgemont in Northern Fall River County. This area has rolling hills with 
occasional deep ravines, dominated by either ponderosa pine forest or mixedgrass prairie. The soils of 
this area are rocky, with areas of silty and sandy loams and exposed sandstone bedrock. 



Figure 6. Southern Black Hills primary area survey locations 


7 


Pedro Primary Survey Area 

This area is located in the northern Hakkon County in the vicinity of an abandoned town, Pedro (Figure 
7). It is approximately 34 km^ in size and is located in the breaks south of the Belle Fourche River. 
Vegetation is primarily juniper forests on east and north facing slopes, shrublands dominated by yucca 
and sumac and mixed grass prairie on the drier western facing slopes. The soils here are primarily clays. 



Ampntbian CsHog Points 
# Mammal Trap Linas 
Bird Pomes 

Visual Enoourria< Surveys 
□□ Pnmay Area 
’ Roads 


County Boundaries 


+ Towns 


Figure 7. Pedro primary area survey iocations 


8 


Mission Ridge Primary Survey Area 

This area is located northwest of Pierre in the vicinity of the town of Mission Ridge south of Lake Oahe in 
northern Stanley County (Figure 8). Although this area was relatively large, approximately 190 km^ in 
size, the BLM managed lands within it are dispersed small blocks. The area is characterized by rolling 
uplands covered by mixedgrass prairie with badland breaks along the edge of the reservoir. The soils 
here are primarily clays with areas of sandy loams. 



Figure 8. Mission Ridge primary area survey iocations 


9 


Two Rivers Primary Survey Area 

This area is located in the river breaks north of the confluence of the Belle Fourche and Cheyenne Rivers 
in southern Ziebach County (Figure 9). It is approximately 150 km^ in size and consists of 3 blocks of BLM 
managed land. The uplands are dominated by mixedgrass prairie, while the breaks have sparse 
ponderosa pine forest, small outcrops of sandstone, badlands, and juniper forests in the draws. The soils 
are primarily clays with areas of loam. 



▲ Antptwbtan CaOvig Potnis 
# Mamntal Trap UnM 
o Bird Points 
■ Visual Ef>countar Surveys 
Primay Area 

Roads 

VWlatet 
BLM Lands 


County Boundaries 
+ *owns 


6 Kjlomelers 


Figure 9. Two Rivers primary area survey iocations 


10 


Methods 

Between May and September of 2014, we 
conducted surveys to document distribution, 
habitat associations, and status of bird, 
terrestrial small mammal, bat, amphibian, and 
reptile species across the eight primary survey 
areas. Within each primary area, we surveyed 
for bird species by conducting on- and off-road 
point count transects. We surveyed for 
terrestrial small mammals by setting trap lines 
using a variety of traps to maximize diversity of 
species detected. To document bat species, we 
placed long-term acoustic monitoring devices at 
5 sentinel areas. We documented amphibian 
species at listening stations along road transects 
during early summer rain events and 
amphibians and aquatic reptiles with visual 
encounter surveys in wetlands. All species 
encountered incidentally during the course of 
this study were recorded to further increase 
distribution information for species not 
documented in structured surveys. 

Bird Surveys 

To document the status and distribution of bird 
species within the study area, we conducted 
point counts using on- and off-road transects in 
May and June of 2014. For the road-based 
transects, we selected road routes that 
maximized the amount of BLM lands the road 
passed through and surveyed 24 points spaced 
0.8 km apart over 18.4 km. In areas with little 
road access through BLM managed lands, we 
conducted off-road point counts by walking 
between points spaced 0.4 km apart with 
transects ranging from 3 to 16 points in length. 
At both on- and off-road transects, we surveyed 
from sunrise until we reached the desired 
number of points or until bird activity started to 
diminish around 10:00 a.m., whichever was 


occurred first. At each point, we surveyed for 
10 minutes, recording the species and distance 
to each bird detected (sensu Hendricks et al. 
2008). We also recorded nests or young 
detected as we moved between points. 

Small Mammal Surveys 

To document small mammal species present on 
BLM managed lands, we placed trap lines 
through a variety of habitats in each primary 
area (sensu Hendricks et al. 2007). Within each 
primary area we attempted to place trap lines 
in all distinct habitat types present. When the 
option to place multiple lines in one habitat 
type existed, we prioritized riparian areas and 
areas with tree or shrub cover since we 
expected these areas to support a higher 
diversity and abundance of small mammals. 
Along each trap line we designated 10 stations 
spaced 10 m apart, over 90 m. At each station 
we deployed an array of traps. We placed a 
cylindrical pit fall container (depth 20cm, 
diameter 15cm) at the center of the station and 
surrounded it at about 1 m distance in 3 
cardinal directions with a Sherman trap (7.5 x 
8.8 X 22.7-cm folding, H.B. Sherman Traps, Inc., 
Tallahassee, FL), a Museum Special snap trap 
(Forestry Suppliers, Jackson, MS), and a Victor 
snap trap (Woodstream Corporation, Lititz, PA). 
We baited Victor and Museum Special traps 
with peanut butter and the Sherman traps with 
commercial sweet feed. To ensure the welfare 
of animals captured in Sherman traps on cold 
nights, we also placed a small amount of 
synthetic quilt batting within each trap to allow 
animals to build nests if needed. If an animal 
was injured by the trap or during handling, we 
euthanized it using isoflurane (University of 


11 



Montana Institutional Animal Care and Use 
Committee protocol 025-13BMMNHP-050613). 

Captured animals were identified in hand if 
possible based on morphological characteristics 
and pelage. If we were uncertain of the species 
of an individual specimen, we euthanized the 
individual and collected it as a voucher 
specimen for more detailed morphological 
analysis (Foresman 2012) at the Montana State 
University Zoological Museum in Bozeman, MT. 

Bat Surveys 

To document bat species present in the study 
area we placed SM2 BAT+ ultrasonic acoustic 
detectors (Wildlife Acoustics, Maynard, MA) 
near habitat features like reservoirs and rivers 
known to attract a diversity of bat species. Due 
to logistic constraints we only placed detectors 
in 3 of the 8 primary areas. SM2 BAT+ ultrasonic 
detectors can be left in the field over long 
periods of time on solar panels and deep cycle 
batteries so we deployed these detectors in late 
October of 2013 and plan to gather data 
through at least the fall of 2015; downloading 
data, checking system power, and ensuring that 
microphones are fully functional every two to 
four months. We used Sonobat (SonoBat 
Version 3.0 Montana, SonoBat, Areata, CA) to 
identify acoustic recordings to species using 
Echolocation Call Characteristics of Montana 
Bats (Appendix B). 

Amphibian and Reptile Surveys 

We surveyed for amphibians using nighttime 
call station transects along roads after rains in 
the spring and early summer to detect breeding 
calls of adults (Heyer et al. 1994). We focused 
our call survey routes along roads that passed 
through and in close proximity to BLM lands, 
stopping to listen for calling amphibians at 
approximately 0.8 km intervals along each 


transect and recording the species detected, 
estimated number in each breeding chorus, and 
direction and distance to each breeding chorus. 

We also conducted visual encounter surveys of 
wetlands on BLM managed lands using dipnets 
during the summer to detect adults and larvae 
(Heyer et al. 1994). These surveys 
supplemented the call surveys which may have 
missed Western Tiger Salamanders 
[Ambystoma mavortium) which do not vocalize 
and Northern Leopard Frogs [Lithobates 
pipiens) which breed in the early spring and 
may have been missed during our call survey 
efforts in some areas (Werner et al. 2004). To 
conduct these surveys, we walked the edge of 
the reservoir or wetland looking for amphibians 
and reptiles and used a dip net in shallow 
waters (< 0.5 m) to capture and identify 
amphibian larvae. 

Incidental Observations 

We recorded species incidentally encountered 
throughout our time in western South Dakota in 
order to document distribution information for 
species that were undetectable with the 
structured survey methodologies we employed 
(e.g. large mammals). 

Analysis 

For each primary survey area, we documented 
the species present, basic habitat associations, 
as well as baseline indices for relative spatial 
distribution and status. For birds, we tabulated 
the proportion of points we detected each 
species at within each of the major habitat 
types in each primary survey area as well as the 
average number of individuals detected at 
points the species was detected. 

For small mammals, we tabulated the 
proportion of lines we detected each species at 
within each of the major habitat types in each 


12 



primary survey area as well as the catch per unit 
effort for each trap type (i.e. the number of 
individuals captured by a particular trap type 
divided by the number of available traps over all 
nights of trapping). 

For bats, we tabulated monthly presence of 
individual species throughout the time 
ultrasonic detectors were deployed at each of 
the long-term monitoring sites as well as the 
overall amount of bat activity each month, the 
number of nights with bat activity, and the 
average, standard error, and range of the 
number of passes per night each month across 
all bat species. 

For amphibian calling surveys, we tabulated the 
proportion of points a species was detected on, 
as well as the average estimated number of 


individuals calling at points where they were 
detected. Because we conducted visual 
encounter surveys at wetlands late in the 
summer after some amphibian species had 
metamorphosed and dispersed from breeding 
sites, we summarized that data with incidental 
observation data. 

Availability of Data 

All structured survey locations and locations of 
detections of animals during surveys or made 
incidentally is available online through the 
Montana Natural Fleritage Program's 
MapViewer http://mtnhp.org/mapviewer/ so 
that is integrated with other survey and 
incidental observation data and more readily 
available for resource management plans and 
project-level planning. 


13 


Results 


Birds 

Over all 8 primary areas we conducted 19 
transect surveys, with 7 road transects and 12 
walking transects (Table 1). In total we surveyed 
278 points with 148 along road transects and 
130 along walking transects. Road transects 
averaged 16 km in length, with 21 points. 
Walking transects averaged 4 km in length, with 
11 points. 


Table 1. Number of bird transects and points surveyed in 
each primary area on driving and walking transects. 


Primary Area 

No. 

Driving 

Transects 

(Points) 

No. Walking 
Transects 
(Points) 

Total No. 
Transects 
(Points) 

Butte County 

2(48) 

2(13) 

4(61) 

Newell 

1(24) 

2 (29) 

3 (53) 

Fort Meade 

1(24) 

0 

1(24) 

Lead 

0 

1 (10) 

1 (10) 

S. Black Hills 

1(12) 

3(21) 

4(33) 

Pedro 

1(16) 

2(30) 

3(46) 

Mission 

Ridge 

1(24) 

0 

1(24) 

Two Rivers 

0 

2(27) 

2(27) 

Totals 

7 (148) 

12 (130) 

19 (278) 


During Point count surveys we detected 100 
species of birds, 11 of which are listed as 
Sensitive by the BLM (Table 2) and 1 of which is 
on South Dakota's Rare, Threatened or 
Endangered Animals list (SDNHP 2014). We 
detected the highest diversity of bird species in 
Central South Dakota, where the prairie 
transitions to conifer forests, and the lowest 
diversity within the conifer forests of the Black 
Hills. 

In the Butte County primary area, we conducted 
point counts in mixedgrass prairie with 
occasional sparse sagebrush cover and stock 
reservoirs, and within riparian woodlands along 
ephemeral creeks. During the road transect 
surveys we detected 30 species, 2 of which are 


BLM Sensitive (Table C-1). While conducting 
walking transect surveys, we detected 30 
species, 2 of which are BLM Sensitive (Table C- 
2 ). 

In the Newell Primary area, we conducted point 
counts in mixedgrass prairie. During road 
transect surveys we detected 28 species, 4 of 
which are BLM Sensitive (Table C-3). During the 
walking transect surveys we detected 25 
species, 2 of which are BLM Sensitive (Table C- 
4). 

In the Fort Meade primary area, we conducted 
point counts in mixedgrass prairie, coniferous 
forest, and deciduous woodland. We detected 
47 species, 1 of which are BLM Sensitive (Table 
C-5). 

In the Lead primary area, we conducted point 
counts in coniferous forest, detecting 16 species 
(Table C-6). This species count is likely low as 
there was occasional heavy rain over the 
duration of the survey, and we concluded the 
survey early due to decreased bird activity. 

In the Southern Black Hills primary area, we 
conducted surveys in mixedgrass prairie, sparse 
coniferous woodland dominated by ponderosa 
pine and juniper, and deciduous riparian 
woodland. We detected 25 species during the 
road survey (Table C-7). During the walking 
transect surveys we detected 32 species (Table 
C-8). 

In the Pedro primary area, we surveyed points 
in mixedgrass prairie and prairie areas adjacent 
to deciduous woodlands, and juniper 
woodlands. While conducting the road based 


14 




survey, we detected 36 species, 3 of which are 
BLM Sensitive with one also listed as a South 
Dakota Rare, Threatened, or Endangered 
Animal (Table C-9, SDNHP 2014). During the 
walking surveys we detected 37 species, 
including 2 that are BLM Sensitive (Table C-10). 

In the Mission Ridge primary area we surveyed 
points in mixedgrass prairie, detecting 28 
species, 2 of which are listed as BLM Sensitive 
(Table C-11). 

In the Two Rivers primary area we surveyed 
points in juniper woodlands and grasslands 
within badlands. During these surveys we 
detected 31 species, 1 of which is BLM Sensitive 
(Table C-12). 

Throughout the field season we recorded 1,015 
incidental observations of 111 unique bird 
species, including 25 not detected during point 
counts; 5 of which are BLM Sensitive (Table 2). 

Table 2. Bird species detected during structured surveys 
and incidentally. Numbers represent the number of 
individuals detected. Global ranks are listed, along with 
the state ranks of rare, threatened, and endangered 
species. Species denoted with an * are BLM Sensitive 
species. 


Bird 

Species 

Survey 

Incidental 

Proportion 
Primary Areas 
Detected (n=8) 

Global (G) & 
some State (S) 
Ranks 

Cormorants 





Double-crested 

Cormorant 

0 

1 

0.12 

G5 

Waterfowl 





American 

Wigeon 

2 

11 

0.25 

G5 

Blue-winged 

Teal 

3 

27 

0.62 

G5 

Canvasback 

0 

2 

0.12 

G5 

Gadwall 

1 

9 

0.5 

G5 

Green-winged 

Teal 

0 

4 

0.25 

G5 


Mallard 

18 

31 

0.62 

G5 

Northern Pintail 

1 

5 

0.38 

G5 

Northern 

Shoveler 

0 

12 

0.25 

G5 

Ruddy Duck 

0 

1 

0.12 

G5 

Wood Duck 

0 

1 

0.12 

G5 

Canada Goose 

16 

6 

0.5 

G5 

Falcons 





American 

Kestrel 

7 

14 

0.75 

G5 

Prairie Falcon 

0 

4 

0.38 

G5 

Merlin 

2 

2 

0.38 

G5 

Raptors 





Red-tailed Hawk 

3 

6 

0.75 

G5 

Golden Eagle * 

6 

8 

0.5 

S3S4B,S3 
N /G5 

Northern 

Harrier 

2 

2 

0.38 

G5 

Ferruginous 
Hawk * 

1 

4 

0.25 

S4B,SZN 

/G4 

Swainson's 

Hawk 

2 

0 

0.12 

S4B,SZN 

/G5 

Bald Eagle * 

1 

5 

0.25 

S1B,S2N 

/G5 

NIghthawks 





Common 

Nighthawk 

11 

20 

0.88 

G5 

Owls 





Burrowing Owl* 

2 

2 

0.38 

S3S4B,SZN 

/G4 

Short-eared Owl 

1 

0 

0.12 

G5 

Great Horned 
Owl 

0 

7 

0.25 

G5 

Pelicans 





American White 
Pelican 

3 

1 

0.38 

S3B,SZN 

/G4 

Herons 





Great Blue 
Heron 

3 

6 

0.62 

S4B,SZN 

/G5 

Pigeons/Dove 

s 





Rock Pigeon 

1 

0 

0.12 

G5 

Mourning Dove 

156 

42 

0.88 

G5 

Ralls 





American Coot 

1 

8 

0.38 

G5 

Shorebirds 






15 




Killdeer 

33 

40 

0.75 

G5 

Upland 

Sandpiper 

80 

43 

0.88 

G5 

Long-billed 
Curlew * 

4 

4 

0.38 

S3B,SZN 

/G5 

Marbled Godwit 

0 

2 

0.25 

G5 

Spotted 

Sandpiper 

1 

6 

0.38 

G5 

Wilson's 

Phalarope 

8 

16 

0.38 

G5 

Wilson's Snipe 

2 

0 

0.12 

G5 

American 

Avocet 

0 

2 

0.25 

G5 

Gulls 





Ring-billed Gull 

5 

2 

0.38 

G5 

Blackbirds 





Bobolink 

17 

4 

0.75 

G5 

Brown-headed 

Cowbird 

168 

25 

0.88 

G5 

Brewer's 

Blackbird 

9 

5 

0.25 

G5 

Eastern 

Meadowlark 

0 

1 

0.12 

S2B,SZN 

/G5 

Western 

Meadowlark 

231 

80 

0.88 

G5 

Common 

Grackle 

19 

10 

0.62 

G5 

Orchard Oriole 

4 

10 

0.5 

G5 

Red-winged 

Blackbird 

91 

40 

1 

G5 

Yellow-headed 

Blackbird 

4 

3 

0.38 

G5 

Chicadees 





Black-capped 

Chickadee 

27 

10 

0.62 

G5 

Finches 





Pine Siskin 

0 

4 

0.25 

G5 

American 

Goldfinch 

11 

10 

0.62 

G5 

Red Crossbill 

0 

1 

0.12 

G5 

Flycatchers 





Eastern Kingbird 

26 

26 

0.88 

G5 

Scissor-tailed 

Flycatcher 

0 

1 

0.12 

G5 

Western 

Kingbird 

16 

11 

0.62 

G5 

Dusky 

Flycatcher 

1 

0 

0.12 

G5 

Great Crested 
Flycatcher 

0 

1 

0.12 

G5 


Western Wood- 
Pewee 

1 

5 

0.38 

G5 

Cordilleran 

Flycatcher 

0 

1 

0.12 

G5 

Alder Flycatcher 

0 

1 

0.12 

G5 

Willow 

Flycatcher 

2 

2 

0.25 

G5 

Gnatcatchers 





Blue-gray 
Gnatcatcher * 

1 

0 

0.12 

S1B,SZN 

/G5 

Jays/Crows/ 

Magpies 





American Crow 

43 

8 

0.62 

G5 

Blue Jay 

6 

8 

0.5 

G5 

Black-billed 

Magpie 

23 

6 

0.38 

G5 

Kinglets 





Golden- 

crowned Kinglet 

0 

1 

0.12 

G5 

Ruby-crowned 

Kinglet 

9 

1 

0.12 

G5 

Larks 





Florned Lark 

69 

35 

0.88 

G5 

Longspurs 





Chestnut- 

collared 

Longspur* 

21 

12 

0.25 

G5 

Nuthatches 





White-breasted 

Nuthatch 

1 

2 

0.12 

G5 

Red-breasted 

Nuthatch 

12 

13 

0.5 

G5 

Pipits 





Sprague's Pipit* 

1 

1 

0.12 

S2B,SZN 

/G4 

Shrikes 





Loggerhead 

Shrike* 

5 

9 

0.38 

G4 

Sparrows/ 

Buntings 





Baird's 

Sparrow* 

0 

1 

0.12 

S2B,SZN 

/G4 

Lark Sparrow 

80 

21 

0.88 

G5 

Grasshopper 

Sparrow 

91 

27 

0.88 

G5 

Vesper Sparrow 

0 

16 

0.5 

G5 

Brewer's 
Sparrow * 

0 

1 

0.12 

G5 


16 




Lark Bunting 

124 

54 

0.75 

G5 

Field Sparrow 

54 

12 

0.62 

G5 

Chipping 

Sparrow 

25 

11 

0.62 

G5 

Dark-eyed Junco 

3 

2 

0.25 

G5 

Spotted Towhee 

63 

10 

0.75 

G5 

Song Sparrow 

7 

2 

0.25 

G5 

Starlings 





European 

Starling 

21 

3 

0.62 

G5 

Swallows 





Tree Swallow 

11 

3 

0.62 

G5 

Cliff Swallow 

5 

0 

0.12 

G5 

Northern 

Rough-winged 

Swallow 

21 

7 

0.62 

G5 

Barn Swallow 

32 

15 

0.62 

G5 

Tanagers/ 

Cardinals/ 

Buntings 





Black-headed 

Grosbeak 

5 

0 

0.25 

G5 

Blue Grosbeak 

13 

11 

0.38 

G5 

Western 

Tanager 

4 

2 

0.38 

G5 

Lazuli Bunting 

2 

0 

0.12 

G5 

Dickcissel 

20 

6 

0.38 

G5 

Thrashers 
Mockingbirds 
/ Catbirds 





Gray Catbird 

1 

0 

0.12 

G5 

Sage Thrasher * 

0 

1 

0.12 

S2B,SZN 

/G5 

Brown Thrasher 

6 

16 

0.75 

G5 

Thrushes 





Mountain 

Bluebird 

5 

3 

0.25 

G5 

Eastern Bluebird 

1 

1 

0.12 

G5 

Swainson's 

Thrush 

2 

1 

0.25 

G5 

Townsend's 

Solitaire 

0 

1 

0.12 

G5 

American Robin 

31 

12 

0.62 

G5 

Vireos 





Bell's Vireo 

2 

2 

0.38 

G5 

Red-eyed Vireo 

2 

1 

0.25 

G5 


Plumbeous 

Vireo 

1 

0 

0.12 

G5 

Warblers 





Yellow Warbler 

18 

9 

0.88 

G5 

Yellow-breasted 

Chat 

4 

1 

0.38 

G5 

Common 

Yellowthroat 

4 

2 

0.38 

G5 

Yellow-rumped 

Warbler 

5 

3 

0.12 

G5 

Ovenbird 

4 

0 

0.25 

G5 

Waxwings 





Cedar Waxwing 

8 

5 

0.62 

G5 

Wrens 





House Wren 

14 

2 

0.38 

G5 

Canyon Wren 

1 

1 

0.12 

G5 

Rock Wren 

12 

5 

0.5 

G5 

Upland Game 
Birds 





Ring-necked 

Pheasant 

23 

0 

0.38 

G5 

Greater Sage- 
Grouse* 

0 

1 

0.12 

G3G4 

Sharp-tailed 

Grouse 

0 

3 

0.25 

G5 

Wild Turkey 

8 

3 

0.38 

G5 

Woodpeckers 





Red-headed 

Woodpecker* 

1 

3 

0.38 

G5 

Northern Flicker 

19 

15 

0.88 

G5 

Hairy 

Woodpecker 

1 

2 

0.25 

G5 

Red-naped 

Sapsucker 

2 

2 

0.12 

G5 

Vultures 





Turkey Vulture 

5 

12 

0.62 

G5 


17 




Mammals 

Across the survey area, we placed 47 trap-lines 
(Table 3). We trapped most lines for three 
nights; one line in the Newell primary area had 
to be removed after one night due to cattle 
damage. 


Table 3. Number of small mammal traplines and bat 
acoustic detectors deployed over all primary areas. 


Primary Area 

Number of 
Traplines 

Number of 
Bat Detectors 

Butte County 

11 

2 

Newell 

6 

2 

Fort Meade 

5 

1 

Lead 

5 

0 

S. Black Hills 

5 

0 

Pedro 

5 

0 

Mission Ridge 

5 

0 

Two Rivers 

5 

0 

Totals 

47 

5 


We deployed small mammal traplines between 
mid-August and mid- September 2014. Across 
all primary areas we captured 15 species of 
small mammals, none of which are listed as 
sensitive by the BLM, or as a rare, threatened, 
or endangered animal (Table 4, SDNHP 2014). 
We were able to identify all species in hand 
except for one shrew (Sorex spp.) caught in a 
sagebrush shrubland. After examination of 
cranial morphology in a zoological museum we 
feel reasonably confident that this is a Montane 
Shrew (S. monticolus) or Dwarf Shrew (5. 
nanus), but are awaiting the results of a 
detailed examination of its guard hairs (sensu 
Pocock and Jennings 2006) before making a 
final decision on the species identification. 

We detected the greatest diversity of small 
mammal species in the conifer forests of the 
Black Hills, while mammal communities were 


the least diverse in the mixedgrass prairies of 
west central South Dakota. 

In the Butte County primary area, we placed 
traplines in mixedgrass prairie, barren habitat, 
shrublands, and along an ephemeral creek, 
detecting 6 species (Tables D-1, D-2). 

In the Newell primary area, we set traplines in 
mixedgrass prairie detecting 3 species (Tables 
D-3, D-4). 

In the Fort Meade primary area, we placed 
traplines in mixedgrass prairie, herbaceous 
wetland, deciduous woodland dominated by 
cottonwood, green ash and bur oak, and 
ponderosa pine woodland, detecting 4 species 
(Tables D-5, D-6). 

In the Lead primary area, we placed traplines in 
coniferous woodland, a wet meadow, and a 
woody riparian area adjacent to a creek, 
detecting 7 species (Tables D-7, D-8). 

In the southern Black Hills primary area at the 
Fossil Cycad National Monument, we placed 
traplines in mixed grass prairie and ponderosa 
pine forest, detecting 4 species (Tables D-9, D- 
10 ). 

In the Pedro primary area, we placed traplines 
in shrublands dominated by silver sagebrush 
and yucca, coniferous woodland dominated by 
rocky mountain juniper, and a coulee bottom 
dominated by mixed grass prairie, detecting 5 
species (Tables D-11, D-12). 

In the Mission Ridge primary area, we placed 
traplines in mixedgrass prairie, barren badlands, 
and a shrubland, detecting 3 species (Tables D- 
13, D-14). 

In the Two Rivers primary area, we placed 
traplines in barren badlands, coniferous 


18 




woodland dominated by ponderosa pine, and 
mixedgrass prairie capturing 5 species (Tables 
D-15, D-16). 

We deployed 5 SM2 acoustic bat detectors in 3 
primary areas in October 2013 and intend to 
have them deployed through the fall of 2015. 
We analyzed and summarized echolocation call 
information through August 2014 for this 
report. In the Butte County primary area, we 
placed one detector next to a stock reservoir 
next to Old Highway 85 near Battle Creek and 
placed the other on a bench next to the South 
Fork of the Moreau River near the Harding 
Road. In the Newell primary area, we placed 
one detector on a small ridge overlooking Jug 
Creek and the other detector next to the Belle 
Fourche River by the Bismarck Bridge. In the 
Fort Meade primary area we placed a detector 
next to Fort Meade Reservoir. 

Across all primary survey areas, we definitively 
identified echolocation calls of 6 species with 
bat activity in October and November 2013 and 
between April and August 2014; no bat activity 
was detected in December of 2013 or January, 
February, or March of 2014 (Tables E-1, E-2). 

In the Butte County primary area, we detected 

5 bat species, 4 at the Battle Creek detector and 
3 at the South Fork of the Moreau River 
detector (Table E-1). At Battle Creek, we 
detected bat activity between May and August 
2014 with the greatest amount of activity 
recorded in May and then decreasing through 
August (Table E-2). At the South Fork of the 
Moreau River, we detected bats between April 
and August 2014 with the greatest amount of 
activity in August (Table E-2). 

In the Newell primary area, we detected a total 
of 6 bat species, 5 at the Jug Creek detector and 

6 at the Bismarck Bridge detector (Table E-1). At 


Jug Creek, we detected bats between May and 
August 2014 (Table E-2). At Bismarck Bridge, we 
detected bats between April and August 2014 
(Table E-2). At both stations bat activity was 
greatest in July 2014 (Table E-2). 

In the Fort Meade primary area, we detected 5 
bat species at the Fort Meade Reservoir with 
bat activity in October and November 2013 and 
between April and August 2014 (Tables E-1, E- 
2). Bat activity was greatest and relatively 
constant in May, June, and July of 2014 (Table 
E-2). 

Throughout the field season we recorded 120 
incidental observations of 20 unique mammal 
species, including 17 not detected at traplines 
or bat acoustic detectors; one of these is BLM 
Sensitive (Table 4). 

Table 4. Mammal species detected within the survey area 
during structured surveys and incidentally. Columns 
display the number of traplines where each species was 
detected, the number of point observations of each 
species, and the proportion of primary areas within 
which each species was detected. Bat species that could 
be definitively identified by echolocation calls are 
denoted with a "D". Global ranks are listed, along with 
the state ranks of rare, threatened and endangered 
species. Species denoted with a * are BLM Sensitive 
species. 


Mammal 

Species 

Survey Detections 

Incidental 

Detections 

Proportion of 
Primary Areas 
Detected (n = 8) 

Global (G) & some 
State (S) Ranks 

Bats 





Big Brown Bat 

D 

0 

0.66 

(n=3) 

G5 

Silver-haired 

D 

0 

1 

S4/G 

Bat 



(n=3) 

5 

Eastern Red 



1 



D 

0 


G5 

Bat 



(n=3) 


Hoary Bat 

D 

0 

0.66 

(n=3) 

G5 


19 



Western 

Small-footed 

Myotis 

D 

0 

1 

(n=3) 

G5 

Little Brown 
Myotis 

D 

0 

1 

(n=3) 

G3 

Shrews 





Least Shrew 

1 

0 

0.12 

S3 

/G5 

Masked 

Shrew 

3 

0 

0.12 

G5 

Sorex Spp. 

1 

0 

0.12 


Pocket Mice 





Hispid Pocket 
Mouse 

5 

0 

0.25 

G5 

Pocket 

Gophers 





Northern 

Pocket 

Gopher 

0 

18 

0.75 

G5 

Beavers 





Beaver 

0 

1 

0.12 

G5 

Porcupines 





Porcupine 

0 

1 

0.12 

G5 

Squirreis 





Black-tailed 
Prairie Dog * 

0 

25 

0.62 

G4 

Thirteen- 
lined Ground 
Squirrel 

2 

1 

0.12 

G5 

Eastern Fox 
Squirrel 

0 

2 

0.12 

G5 

Least 

Chipmunk 

1 

5 

0.25 

G5 

Red Squirrel 

0 

11 

0.38 

G5 

Mice/ Voies 





Long-tailed 

Vole 

3 

0 

0.12 

G5 

Prairie Vole 

8 

0 

0.5 

G5 

Meadow Vole 

7 

1 

0.38 

G5 

Southern 

Red-backed 

Vole 

3 

0 

0.12 

G5 

Northern 

Grasshopper 

Mouse 

3 

0 

0.12 

G5 

White-footed 

Mouse 

13 

0 

0.62 

G5 


Deer Mouse 

35 

0 

1 

G5 

Western 

Harvest 

Mouse 

2 

0 

0.25 

G5 

Plains Harvest 
Mouse 

4 

0 

0.5 

G5 

Rabbits 





White-tailed 
Jack Rabbit 

0 

6 

0.38 

G5 

Desert 

Cottontail 

0 

2 

0.25 

G5 

Skunks 





Striped Skunk 

0 

1 

0.12 

G5 

Weaseis 





Badger 

0 

4 

0.38 

G5 

Raccoons 





Raccoon 

0 

6 

0.12 

G5 

Waives/ 

Coyotes/ 

Foxes 





Coyote 

0 

1 

0.12 

G5 

Red Fox 

0 

1 

0.12 

G5 

Pronghorn 





Pronghorn 

0 

22 

0.5 

G5 

Deer/ 
Moose/ Eik 





Elk 

0 

1 

0.12 

G5 

Mule Deer 

0 

1 

0.12 

G5 

White-tailed 

Deer 

0 

10 

0.62 

G5 


Amphibians and Reptiles 

We surveyed 123 nighttime amphibian call 
survey stations on 6 call survey routes in 4 
primary areas on rainy nights in late-May 
through mid-June 2014 (Table 5). Not all 
primary areas were surveyed due to a lack of 
wetlands in proximity to roads and unfavorably 
dry conditions. 


20 




Table 5. Number of nighttime amphibian cali surveys 
performed in each primary area. 


Primary Area 

Number of Call Survey Routes 
(Points Surveyed) 

Butte County 

2(39) 

Newell 

1(12) 

Fort Meade 

1 (18) 

Lead 

0 

S. Black Flills 

0 

Pedro 

0 

Mission Ridge 

1(29) 

Two Rivers 

1(25) 

Totals 

6 (123) 


Across all primary areas we detected 5 
amphibian species, including 2 that are BLM 
Sensitive (Table 6). We detected the highest 
diversity of amphibians in the mixedgrass 
prairies of central South Dakota in close 
proximity to the Belle Fourche River. The least 
diverse area was in mixedgrass prairie in west 
central South Dakota (Appendix F). In the Butte 
County primary area we detected 3 species 
calling (Table F-1). In the Newell primary area 
we detected 1 species (Table F-2). In the Fort 
Meade primary area we detected 2 species 
(Table F-3). In the Mission Ridge primary area 
we detected 2 species calling (Table F-4). In the 
Two Rivers primary area we detected 4 species 
(Table F-5). 

Across the study area we had 1,341 point 
observations of 6 amphibian species. We did 
not observe any amphibian species incidentally 
that were not detected during surveys. We had 
62 incidental point observations of 8 reptile 
species (Table 6). 


Table 6. Amphibian and reptile species detected within 
the survey area during structured surveys and 
incidentally. Columns display the number of calling 
survey points where each species was detected, the 
number of point observations of each species, and the 
proportion of primary areas within which each species 
was detected. Global ranks are listed, along with the 
state ranks of rare, threatened and endangered species. 
Species denoted with a * are BLM Sensitive species. 


Amphibian and 
Reptile Species 

Survey 

Detections 

Incidental 

Detections 

Proportion of 
Primary Areas 
Detected (n = 5) 

Global (G) & 
some State (S) 
Ranks 

Amphibians 





Moie Saiamanders 





Western Tiger 
Salamander 

0 

9 

0.5 

G5 

True Toads 





Great Plains Toad* 

19 

3 

0.25 

G5 

Woodhouse's Toad 

13 

9 

0.25 

G5 

True Frogs 





Northern Leopard 
Frog 

10 

31 

0.75 

G5 

Boreal Chorus Frog 

96 

82 

0.88 

G5 

Spadefoot Toads 





Plains Spadefoot* 

18 

1 

0.38 

G5 

Reptiies 





Pond Turties 





Painted Turtle 

0 

12 

0.63 

G5 

Vipers 





Prairie Rattlesnake 

0 

2 

0.13 

G5 

Coiubrid Snakes 





Smooth Greensnake 

0 

1 

0.13 

54 /G5 

Gophersnake 

0 

3 

0.38 

G5 

Terrestrial 

Gartersnake 

0 

7 

0.5 

G5 

Plains Gartersnake 

0 

11 

0.38 

G5 

Sagebrush/ Spiny 
Lizards 





Greater Short-horned 
Lizard* 

0 

1 

0.13 

52 /G5 


21 





Discussion/ 

Recommendations 

Over western South Dakota, riparian habitats 
within mixedgrass prairie on public lands 
generally lack shrub or tree cover (D. Bachen, 
personal observation). Both riparian and 
upland sites with adequate tree and shrub 
cover have been previously documented to 
support a diverse community of birds, bats, and 
terrestrial small mammals not typically found in 
associated prairie habitats (Bjugstad and Girard 
1984, Finch and Ruggiero 1993). We similarly 
found that communities of bird and bat species 
differ between these habitat types (Tables C-1, 
C-2, and E-2). However, our ability to conduct 
surveys to further explore these community 
differences and document species occurring in 
riparian woodlands was hampered by a lack of 
riparian woodlands on public lands. We 
recommend future efforts focus on gaining 
access to existing riparian woodlands located on 
private property in order to conduct surveys in 
these habitats. We also recommend efforts to 
conserve existing riparian woodlands and 
restore riparian woodland areas that are 
becoming deforested by mimicking the natural 
frequency and intensity of disturbances 
resulting from historical grazing, fire, and flood 
regimes (Bjugstad and Girard 1984, Sieg 1995). 

Naturally occurring and manmade lentic 
wetlands are biodiversity hotspots on the 
prairie landscape that are essential for some 
groups like waterbirds, amphibians, and aquatic 
reptiles. Use of wetlands by livestock has been 
shown to affect some species of wildlife 
through degradation of water quality and 
reduction of associated aquatic and terrestrial 
vegetation (Knutson et al. 2004, Schmutzer et 
al. 2008). We didn't see major impacts to 


wetland habitats during the course of our study 
in western South Dakota, but encourage 
managers to work toward maintaining wetlands 
in their present state by mimicking frequencies 
and intensities of disturbance associated with 
historical grazing regimes of native ungulates. 

Terrestrial small mammals play an important 
role in many of the ecosystems within the study 
area. Small mammals are prey for a diversity of 
species including raptors and shrikes and their 
burrows also provide shelter for species like 
Burrowing Owls (Athene cunicularia) and Great 
Plains Toads [Anaxyrus cognatus). Both 
vegetation and soil type are important 
components of habitat for small mammals, and 
efforts to conserve these species should focus 
on these habitat attributes. One of the primary 
threats to small mammal populations is 
alteration of native habitat through the invasion 
of nonnative plant species which have the 
potential to alter the physical structure of 
vegetation and impact the abundance and 
distribution of these species (Litt and Pearson 
2013, Bachen 2014). In some areas of the Butte 
County and Two Rivers primary areas, we found 
widespread dense stands of sweet clover 
(Melilotus officinalis). This invasive species 
appeared to be displacing native vegetation and 
may be affecting wildlife, although further 
research is necessary to confirm its effects on 
invaded ecosystems. Management efforts that 
mitigate the invasion of nonnative plants are 
likely to conserve existing small mammal 
populations and associated species. 

Arguably some of the most valuable data we 
collected from this project are observations of 
bat species. Bat populations in general have 
not been studied as closely as other taxa, and 
can be negatively impacted by both 
development of wind energy (Kunz et al. 2007) 


22 



and disease (Lorch et al. 2011). We found bat 
species within the study area to be most active 
during the warm season, with an apparent 
cessation of activity or migration out of the area 
between December and March. Winter bat 
roosts on the South Dakotas prairie habitats are 
likely absent or extremely rare. If they exist, 
identification and protection of those roosts is 
important. However, it is more likely that 
managers would be able to conserve bat 
species within this region by identifying and 
protecting summer roosts. Although general 
roost structures been documented for the 
species we observed (Kunz and Fenton 2006), 
little effort has been made to identify the 
specific types and importance of structures 
used in the Northern Great Plains, including 
South Dakota. Future efforts should be made to 
address this, including radio telemetry surveys 
and surveys of potential roost structures such 
as bridges and buildings. This and other 
information on bat species in this region would 
assist with mitigating potential impacts of wind 
energy development. 

During this project we conducted visual 
encounter surveys of lentic waterbodies to 
detect breeding amphibians and aquatic 
reptiles, however due to logistical constraints 
we did not begin surveys until August, after 
some species had already metamorphosed and 
left breeding sites. Visual encounter surveys are 
valuable because they not only confirm 
breeding of amphibians, but unlike roadside 
calling surveys, they have the ability to detect 
amphibian species that either do not call or call 
softly as well as reptile species that use 
wetlands. Also by surveying during the breeding 
season for waterfowl and other water birds. 


surveys can provide valuable breeding records 
for these species. Therefore, we recommend 
future surveys starting in the late spring and 
early summer should be conducted to 
supplement the information we gathered with 
this project. 

Prior to this effort, few baseline surveys for 
nongame species on BLM lands have been 
conducted and entered into the Montana 
Natural Heritage Program's databases. As past 
surveys documenting status and distribution of 
nongame species have likely been conducted in 
this area, further efforts should be made to 
incorporate existing structured survey data into 
the NHP database to increase availability of this 
data and aid in management of species across 
BLM managed lands in South Dakota. 

This survey effort has increased the number of 
point observations in the Montana Natural 
Heritage Program's database by 40% to 4,122; 
increasing the number of observations for birds 
by 35%, mammals by 61%, amphibians by 
2060%, and reptiles by 77%. Our surveys added 
33 new bird species, including 4 that are BLM 
Sensitive: Brewers Sparrow (Spizella breweri), 
Burrowing Owl, Long-billed Curlew [Numenius 
americanus), and Sage Thrasher [Oreoscoptes 
montanus). This effort also add 6 mammal 
species, 4 amphibian species, including 2 South 
Dakota Rare, Threatened, or Endangered 
Animals (Great Plains Toad and Plains 
Spadefoot [Spea bombifrons) ), and 3 reptile 
species, including the Greater Short-horned 
Lizard [Phrynosoma hernandesi) which is a 
South Dakota Rare, Threatened, or Endangered 
Animal (SDNHP 2014). 


23 



Literature Cited 

Bachen, D.A. 2014. Cheatgrass invasion of 
sagebrush steppe: impacts of vegetation 
structure on small mammals. Thesis, Montana 
State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA. 

Backlund, D. C. 2002. The expanding 
distribution of the least shrew, Cryptotis 
parva, in South Dakota. Proceedings of the 
South Dakota Academy of Science. 81:153- 
159. 

Bjugstad, A. J., and M. Girard. 1984. Wooded 
draws in rangelands of the northern Great 
Plains, guidelines for increasing wildlife on 
farms and ranches. Great Plains Agriculture 
Council and Kansas State University, 
Manhattan: 27B-36B. 

Finch, D. M., and L. F. Ruggiero. 1993. Wildlife 
habitats and biological diversity in the Rocky 
Mountains and Northern Great Plains. Natural 
Areas Journal 13:191-203. 

Foresman, K. 2012. Mammals of Montana. 
Second edition. Mountain Press Publishing 
Company, Missoula, Montana. 

Fleisler, L. M., C. M. Somers, T. I. Wellicome, 
and R. G. Poulin. 2013. Landscape-scale 
features affecting small mammal assemblages 
on the northern Great Plains of North 
America. Journal of Mammalogy 94:1059- 
1067. 

Flendricks, P., S. Lenard, C. Currier, and B. 
Maxell. 2007. Filling the distribution gaps for 
small mammals in Montana. Montana Natural 
Fleritage Program Technical Report. Flelena, 
Montana. 


Flendricks, P., S. Lenard, C. Currier, B. Maxell, 
and J. Carlson. 2008. Surveys for grassland 
birds of the Malta Field Office-BLM, including 
a seven-year study in north Valley County. 
Montana Natural Fleritage Program Technical 
Report. Flelena, Montana. 

Fleyer, W. R., M. A. Donnelly, and R. W. 
MacDiarmid. 1994. Measuring and monitoring 
biological diversity: Standard methods for 
amphibians. Biological Diversity Flandbook 
Series. Smithsonian Institute Press, 
Washington DC, USA. 

Knutson, M. G., W. B. Richardson, D. M. 

Reineke, B. R. Gray, J. R. Parmelee, and S. E. 
Weick. 2004. Agricultural ponds support 
amphibian populations. Ecological 
Applications 14:669-684. 

Kunz, T.FI. and M. B. Fenton editors. 2006. Bat 
Ecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 
Illinois, USA. 

Kunz, T. FI., E. B. Arnett, W. P. Erickson, A. R. 
Floar, G. D. Johnson, R. P. Larkin, M. D. 
Strickland, R. W. Thresher, and M. D. Tuttle. 
2007. Ecological impacts of wind energy 
development on bats: questions, research 
needs, and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology 
and the Environment 5:315-324. 

Litt, A. R., and D. E. Pearson. 2013. Non-native 
plants and wildlife in the Intermountain West. 
Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:517-526. 


24 



Lorch, J. M., C. U. Meteyer, M. J. Behr, J. G. 
Boyles, P. M. Cryan, A. C. Hicks, A. E. 

Ballmann, J. T. H. Coleman, D. N. Redell, D. M. 
Reeder, and D. S. Blehert. 2011. Experimental 
infection of bats with Geomyces destructans 
causes white-nose syndrome. Nature 
480:376-378. 

(NOAA) National Oceanographic and 
Atmospheric Administration. 2012. 1981- 
2010 climate norms. 

<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/nor 
mals/usnormals.html> Accessed 25 Oct 2014. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS], 
United States Department Of Agriculture 
[USDA]. Soil survey staff. Web soil survey. 
<http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/> 
Accessed 1 Nov 2014. 

Pocock, M. J. O., and N. Jennings. 2006. Use of 
hair tubes to survey for shrews: new methods 
for identification and quantification of 
abundance. Mammal Review 36:299-308. 


Schmutzer, A. C., M. J. Gray, E. C. Burton, and D. 
L. Miller. 2008. Impacts of cattle on 
amphibian larvae and the aquatic 
environment. Freshwater Biology 53:2613- 
2625. 

Sieg, C. H. 1995. The role of fire in managing for 
biological diversity on native rangelands of 
the northern Great Plains. Conserving 
biodiversity on native rangelands: Symposium 
proceedings. USFS Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR- 
298. 

(SDNHP) South Dakota Natural Heritage 
Program. 2014. Rare, threatened or 
endangered animals tracked by the South 
Dakota Natural Heritage 
Program. <http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/threaten 
ed-endangered/rare-animal. aspx> Accessed 
November 2014. 

Werner, J. K., B. A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D. 
L. Flath, editors. 2004. Amphibians and 
Reptiles of Montana. Mountain Press 
Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana. 

262 p. 


25 



Appendix A. 

Global and State Rank Definition 



Heritage Program Ranks 

The international network of Natural Heritage Programs employs a standardized ranking system to 
denote global (range-wide) and state status. Species are assigned numeric ranks ranging from 1 to 5, 
reflecting the relative degree to which they are "at-risk". Rank definitions are given below. A number of 
factors are considered in assigning ranks — the number, size and distribution of known "occurrences" or 
populations, population trends (if known), habitat sensitivity, and threat. Factors in a species' life history 
that make it especially vulnerable are also considered (e.g., dependence on a specific pollinator). 

Global Rank Definitions (NatureServe 2003 ) 

G1 Critically imperiled because of extreme rarity and/or other factors making it highly vulnerable 
to extinction 

G2 Imperiled because of rarity and/or other factors making it vulnerable to extinction 

G3 Vulnerable because of rarity or restricted range and/or other factors, even though it maybe 
abundant at some of its locations 

G4 Apparently secure, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery 

G5 Demonstrably secure, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the 

periphery 

Tl-5 Infraspecific Taxon (trinomial) —The status of infraspecific taxa (subspecies or varieties) are 
indicated by a "T-rank" following the species' global rank 

State Rank Definitions 

51 At high risk because of extremely limited and potentially declining numbers, extent 
and/or habitat, making it highly vulnerable to extirpation in the state 

52 At risk because of very limited and potentially declining numbers, extent and/or habitat, 
making it vulnerable to extirpation in the state 

53 Potentially at risk because of limited and potentially declining numbers, extent and/or 
habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas 

54 Uncommon but not rare (although it may be rare in parts of its range), and usually 
widespread. Apparently not vulnerable in most of its range, but possibly cause for long- 
term concern 

55 Common, widespread, and abundant (although it may be rare in parts of its range). Not 
vulnerable in most of its range 


Appendix A-1 



Combination Ranks 


G#G# or S#S# Range Rank— A numeric range rank (e.g., G2G3) used to indicate uncertainty about the 
exact status of a taxon 


Qualifiers 

NR Not ranked 

Q Questionable taxonomy that may reduce conservation priority— Distinctiveness of this 

entity as a taxon at the current level is questionable; resolution of this uncertainty may 
result in change from a species to a subspecies or hybrid, or inclusion of this taxon in 
another taxon, with the resulting taxon having a lower-priority (numerically higher) 
conservation status rank 

X Presumed Extinct— Species believed to be extinct throughout its range. Not located 

despite intensive searches of historical sites and other appropriate habitat, and virtually 
no likelihood that it will be rediscovered 

H Possibly Extinct— Species known from only historical occurrences, but may never-the 

less still be extant; further searching needed 

U Unrankable— Species currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to 

substantially conflicting information about status or trends 

HYB Hybrid— Entity not ranked because it represents an interspecific hybrid and not a 

species 

? Inexact Numeric Rank— Denotes inexact numeric rank 

C Captive or Cultivated Only— Species at present is extant only in captivity or cultivation, 

or as a reintroduced population not yet established 

A Accidental— Species is accidental or casual in South Dakota, in other words, infrequent 

and outside usual range. Includes species (usually birds or butterflies) recorded once or 
only a few times at a location. A few of these species may have bred on the one or two 
occasions they were recorded 

Z Zero Occurrences— Species is present but lacking practical conservation concern in 

South Dakota because there are no definable occurrences, although the taxon is native 
and appears regularly in South Dakota 

P Potential— Potential that species occurs in Montana but no extant or historic 

occurrences are accepted 


Appendix A - 2 



Reported— Species reported in South Dakota but without a basis for either accepting or 
rejecting the report, or the report not yet reviewed locally. Some of these are very 
recent discoveries for which the program has not yet received first-hand information; 
others are old, obscure reports 

Synonym— Species reported as occurring in South Dakota, but the South Dakota Natural 
Heritage Program does not recognize the taxon; therefore the species is not assigned a 
rank 

A rank has been assigned and is under review. Contact the South Dakota Natural 
Heritage Program for assigned rank 

Breeding— Rank refers to the breeding population of the species in South Dakota 

Nonbreeding— Rank refers to the non-breeding population of the species in South 
Dakota 


Appendix A - 3 



Appendix B: 

Echolocation Call Characteristics of Montana Bats 



Echolocation Call Characteristics of Montana Bats^ 







■■ 


Upper 

Lower 

Total 

Diagnostic^ and 


species 

fo 

low / 

high/ 


dur 

slope 

slope 

slope 

Special characteristics 













Myotis 

49.2 

45.6 

90.0 

55.2 

5.5 

16.6 

4.4 

8.1 

Power focused around fo\ gradually builds up to 
peak and attenuates rapidly. Typically exhibit 
enly a hint of a tail. Pronounced knee, dur >6 
ms, upprSIp <16, IwrSIp <3, /c >44 kHz 


yuiiictn&n^i^ 









diagnostic within known range (95% Cl for 
MYLU). Sometimes insert longer duration 
calls within sequence of short duration calls. 


Yuma Myotis 

44.8-54.8 

42.4-48.4 

64.0- 

46.0-78.8 

3.3-7.9 

5.4-27.4 

1. 6-9.4 

2.2-17.9 

Limited geographic range in MT (west of 




116.0 






Continental Divide). 

50 

Myotis 

californicus 

49.1 

45.3 

99.6 

52.8 

3.8 

28.0 

7.4 

15.1 

FM sweep a smooth curve (i.e., no inflection), 
beginning steeply and then increasing in 
curvature*. Often a well defined downward tail. 
Sometimes a lower inflection; with the 
appearance of a “ledge” or “shelf” or 
“secondary change in slope” before /c. Peak 
power of call typically persists for at least 1 
ms on non-saturated calls, /c >48 kHz 
diagnostic (95% Cl for MYCI). 



California Myotis 

44.9-52.9 

40.7-48.7 

78.4- 

45.0-65.2 

2.0-5.6 

14.0-42 

2.4-12.6 

3.9-26.9 

*some calls may have an inflection, but the 




122.4 






smoothly curved variant is diagnostic. 













Myotis 

ciiioiabrum 

44.3 

40.6 

95.1 

49.1 

3.2 

33.5 

9.6 

16.9 

FM sweep a smooth curve (i.e., no inflection), 
beginning steeply and then increasing in 
curvature*. Often a well-defined downward tail. 

40 

Peak power of call typically persists for at 
least 1 ms on non-saturated calls, /c <45 kHz 
diagnostic if within MYCA geographic range 

(95% Cl for MYCA). 

*some calls may have an inflection, but the 
smoothly curved variant is diagnostic. 


















Western Small- 

39.7-47.7 

37.4-43.4 

76.9- 

42.9-54.9 

1. 8-4.6 

20.5-46.5 

4.4-14.4 

7.1-27.1 


footed Myotis 



112.9 







Appendix B - 1 


































Myotis 

43.2 



51.3 

3.9 

24.2 

11.7 

18.6 

Calls may have up to 100 kHz of bandwidth. 

Shaped like MYEV or MYTH but distinguished by 


septentrionalis 

/c. FM sweep may be nearly linear making fc 
difficult to recognize. Quiet but consistent calls. 










Northern Long- 

36.8-50.8 

27.0-47.0 

86.0- 

30.7-72.7 

2.3-5.3 

11.8-35.8 

3.1-20.3 

9.4-29.4 

Presence in Montana uncertain - capture and 


eared Myotis 



124.0 






genetic analysis needed to confirm ID. 


Myotis 

41.6 

36.9 

89.6 

48.0 

4.8 

15.1 

H 

12.0 

May exhibit an upward sweep into the call; 
uncommon, but diagnostic when present. 


volans 

Generally has shorter, steeper calls than MYLU 
in open (uncluttered) areas. Note that alias 










Long-legged Myotis 

36.4-46.4 

31.1-43.1 

66.4- 

112.4 

39.0-60.0 

2.4-7.0 

6.9-22.9 


4.0-22.0 

harmonics may resemble upsweeps if sonogram 
is truncated (e.g. 96kHz maximum). 


Myotis 

iucifugus 

40.8 

38.1 

74.5 

44.5 

6.0 

13.1 

3.9 


Sometimes with multiple power centers making 
calls look clumpy. Can make the longest duration 
and lowest slope calls of all Myotis. Dur >7 ms 
(95% Cl for MYVO) and IwrSIp <3 diagnostic 
among 40 kHz Myotis; fc <44 kHz diagnostic 
west of Continental Divide (95% Cl for MYYU). 

37.2-43.2 

33.9-41.9 

51.5-97.5 

36.0-53.5 

3.2-8.6 

2.7-26.9 

0.8-9.1 

1.6-13.8 

Little Brown Bat 


Lasiurus 

40.4 

40.2 

67.6 

43.8 

6.8 

10.0 

2.0 


U-shaped calls; up-turn at end of call; may 


boreaiis 

exhibit variable fc across sequence. Power 
smoothly centered in call. Typically ~40 kHz calls 










Eastern Red Bat 

31.6-47.6 

33.8-45.8 

40.4-94.4 

34.2-54.2 

3.2-11.4 

0.1-22 

0.0-4.4 


with dur >1 0 ms at LABO. 






















Calls may have up to 100 kHz of bandwidth. 


Myotis evotis 

34.3 

28.1 

78.5 

39.1 

D 

20.5 

8.7 

13.5 

Shaped like MYTH and MYSE but distinguished 
by fc = 32-36 (upper range boundary for MYTH, 
95% CIs for MYVO and MYSE). FM sweep may 
be nearly linear making fc difficult to recognize. 


Long-eared Myotis 

31.7-37.7 

23.9-33.9 

49.5- 

31.0-46.9 

2.1 -5.3 

6.1-35.5 

2.3-15.3 

4.9-24.5 

Harmonics converge toward primary call 





107.5 






component. 

30 

Eptesicus 

fuscus 

Big Brown Bat 

28.2 

25.8-31.8 

27.2 

24.8-30.8 

56.6 

43.4-69.4 

31.9 

25.0-40.1 

7.8 

2.8-12.2 

8.5 

2.5-15.5 

2.1 

0.3-4.3 

4.0 

0.6-7.6 

Variable; calls with high / below 60 kHz can be 
confused with LANO. Calls with high / >65 kHz 
distinguish from LANO (high / range boundary 
for LANO), >12 ms to distinguish from ANPA 
where species coexist (duration range 
boundary for ANPA); even long calls have some 
FM component. Parallel harmonics. 


Appendix B - 2 















































Antrozous 

pallidus 

Pallid Bat 


28.0 


26.0-30.0 


26.2 


23.8-29.8 


54.5 


41.5-67.5 


31.0 


25.0-37.0 


6.8 


3.8-10.0 


8.1 


3.0-15.9 


2.7 


0.6-5.1 


4.3 


2.1-7.9 


Often simple curved FM sweep, sometimes with 
knee in center. Distinguish from EPFU when <6 

calls/sec, but calculate this manually by 
looking for caii intervais >180 ms for >1 
second. Note that MYTFI & MYEV can also be 
<6 calls/sec. No tail. Parallel harmonics. 
Presence of social calls diagnostic (see ref. 
calls). 


20 


Lasionycteris 

noctivagans 


26.5 


25.4 


41.5 


28.8 


9.2 


5.2 


1.3 


Silver-haired Bat 


25.5-27.5 


22.6-28.6 


26.0-58.5 


24.0-33.2 


2.3-16.8 


0 . 0 - 12.6 


0.0-3.7 


2.5 


0.0-6.7 


Some call variants can be confused with EPFU. 
Flat calls with fc ^26 kHz diagnostic. Shorter 
calls reverse J-shaped; often with a distinct 
inflection. Parallel harmonics. Flat LACI calls are 
lower in fc, but shorter LACI approach calls may 
overlap short LANO calls (examine entire 
sequence and call interval). Low slope calls with 
fc = 25-26 kHz may be distinguished from LACI 
by the presence of an inflection. EPFU has more 
FM, typically with smooth curvature (no 
inflection), and high / >33 kHz (lower range 
boundary). 


Myotis 

thysanodes 


24.5 


19.8 


72.4 


30.7 


3.9 


Fringed Myotis 


21.5-27.5 


14.2-24.2 


41.6- 

103.6 


24.0-39.3 


1. 9-5.9 


19.0 


7.1-33.0 


9.2 


3.1-16.8 


13.9 


4.9-24.1 


Calls may have up to 100 kHz of bandwidth. 
Shaped like MYEV but distinguished by fc. FM 
sweep may be nearly linear making fc difficult to 
recognize. Want to have presence of harmonics 
to distinguish from COTO if high / <50 kHz. 
Continuous steep shape and fc down into the 
20s is diagnostic: totaiSip >15, fc <28 kHz, 
and iow / <24 kHz diagnostic or totaiSip 
>10,/c <28 kHz, and iow / <24 kHz diagnostic 
if harmonics converge toward primary caii 
component. 


Appendix B - 3 




















Corynorhinus 

townsendii 


Townsend’s Big- 
eared Bat 


23.4 


18.6-28.6 


21.4 


17.0-24.6 


42.5 


37.5-47.5 


31.1 


24.9-36.9 


4.6 


1. 7-8.0 


7.1 


0.2-18.9 


4.9 


1. 5-8.3 


5.0 


2 . 0 - 8.0 


Low intensity, difficult to detect; harmonics may 
be present. Call-shape simple linear FM sweep, 
(sometimes with upsweep or flat at onset - no 
knee or upward facing curvature toward end of 
call unless a connected squiggle). Squiggle 
calls diagnostic (5-7 ms period), /max may 
alternate between primary call component and 
second harmonic. For search phase calls, GOTO 
will have high / <50 kHz, /c <32 kHz, and /max 
<41 kHz (upper range boundaries). ’‘Examine 
entire call sequence and look for upward facing 
curvature on any call; If found, likely not GOTO. 
LACI and LANO approach calls and some linear 
MYTH fragments can mimic GOTO. 


Lasiurus 

cinereus 

Hoary Bat 


20.1 


16.0-23.9 


19.7 


16.3-24.3 


26.0 


17.0-36.0 


20.8 


17.0-25.2 


11.0 


4.0-19.0 


2.2 


0 . 1 - 6.0 


0.4 


0 . 0 - 1. 2 


0.7 


0 . 0 - 2.1 


Pronounced or subtle U-shape; very flat calls 
may have slight downturn Into call or upturn at 
end. Low / & /c may vary across sequence, 
power builds toward center then gradually 
declines. Short calls can be confused with LANO 
or EPFU. Typically fc <23 kHz. 


10 


Euderma 

maculatum 

Spotted Bat 


10 

8 . 6 - 12.0 


9.6 

8.2-10.4 


14.5 

12.0-17.5 


12.5 

10.0-15.5 


3.2 

1 . 6 - 6.0 


2.2 

0.1 -5.2 


1.5 

0. 1-3.1 


1.7 

0.9-2.7 


Simple linear FM sweep, sometimes with a mild 
Inflection. Short calls at low frequency. 

Harmonics often present, with second harmonic 
persisting beyond primary call component, fc = 7- 

10 kHz and dur = 3-8 ms diagnostic. 


^ data from Humbolt State University Bat Lab (Eastern and Western US Bats 2011); numbers represent means and approximate 95% confidence intervals - if the 95% Cl exceeded the observed range of a charcteristic, 
the range boundary was used. 

^ diagnostic characteristics for determination of species identification are bolded in text. 

^ filters and notes for internal use only; these represent work in progress or draft guidelines for limiting hand class efforts; seasonal range dates are from either definitively IDed calls (as of Nov 2014) or captures in POD 
but are not set in stone. 


Appendix B - 4 
































Important Characteristic/Sonogram Terminology^ 


Primary call; the component of an echolocation sound emitted by a bat with the lowest frequency, also called the fundamental; 

typically the most powerful and sometimes the only part of the call visible on a sonogram 
Harmonic: multiple, typically subtle components of the call, existing at higher frequencies but roughly parallel to the primary call component; presence may 

indicate higher call quality unless a call is oversaturated 

The characteristics below refer to attributes of the primary call. In rare cases, a harmonic may be the most powerful component of a call; these characteristics 
and their corresponding values in this key are not applicable to those measured from a harmonic component, 
low/: lowest frequency (kHz) 
high/: highest frequency (kHz) 

/c: characteristic frequency, the frequency of the call at its lowest slope (kHz) 

/max: the frequency where the power is greatest (kHz) 
dur: duration (ms) from the start to the end of a call 

Upper slope: the slope of the call (kHz/ms) between the high /and the knee; abbreviated: upprSIp 
Lower slope: the slope of the call (kHz/ms) between the knee and the/c; abbreviated: IwrSIp 
Total slope: the slope of the call (kHz/ms) between the high /and the low/; abbreviated: totalSIp 

Other terms used to describe calls: 

FM: frequency modulation, change in frequency over time; most calls start at a high frequency and sweep down to a lower frequency 
power: amplitude or sound energy (i.e. volume) 

oversaturation: powerful calls may exceed the microphone/recorder capability and produce anomalies in the sonogram such as full spectrum "noise" 
(clipping) or alias harmonics (upside-down harmonics); peak power duration cannot be accurately estimated 
inflection or knee: pronounced change in slope; some calls may not have an obvious knee if very steep or smoothly curved 
flat: a call or portion of a call with very low or no slope (horizontal), i.e. constant frequency (CF) 
sequence: a series of bat calls, produced as a bat flies past the detector 

calls/sec: the number of calls per second for a given period; note that Sonobat's calculation of this characteristic may be incorrect due to multiple bats in 
a recording, low intensity calls, and dead air space in a sequence - ms between calls should be examined and calls should be looked at in real 
time to accurately estimate this characteristic if needed 

Note that all frequencies should be interpreted as apparent or observed frequencies. These values may vary from the frequency emitted by the bat due to 
distance to detector (decreasing call power or volume). Call volume may have a noticeable effect on all frequencies recorded depending on the location of the 
power in the call (>5 kHz). 


Appendix B - 5 



Call Types^ 

The values for the characteristics listed in this key are based on search phase calls. Therefore, it is important to make sure that search phase calls are examined 

and analyzed during hand classification. 

Search phase calls: used for general navigation and searching in uncluttered areas, generally consistent call characteristics, approximately 3-12 calls per second; 
bats may be able to detect objects >10 meters away with these calls^ 

Approach phase calls: used when approaching either prey or a landing site or in cluttered airspace, such as when flying around vegetation; these calls are 
typically steeper and shorter than search calls and frequencies may shift up significantly, often 10-25 calls per second 

Feeding buzz: also called terminal phase calls, used for close proximity object location during prey pursuit/capture, may exceed 100 calls per second^; very steep 
and short calls that can mimic other species if interpreted as search calls, but can be much lower in volume/power; not useful for species ID 

Social calls: used to communicate with other bats, often lower in frequency than search phase calls for a species and may contain complex frequency 
modulation patterns; may be very helpful for identifying some species (e.g. ANPA) but are irregularly recorded 

How to Use the Key for Montana Bats^ 

Tip: Put bat detector in an open, uncluttered environment so that it is more likely to detect bats using search phase calls. 

1. Look at search phase calls (not approach calls, feeding buzzes, or social calls) within a sequence. 

2. Choose noise free calls with harmonics so that you are more likely to see the whole call instead of just a portion. Note that some calls may be 
oversaturated if the bat closely approached the microphone and these should be avoided if possible. 

3. Look at the entire sequence in both compressed and real time views. This will help you see the whole picture (Are there multiple bats? Feeding buzzes 
or other non-search phase calls?). This is particularly important differentiating EPFU vs. ANPA, MYLU vs. LABO, and for GOTO in general since many 
other species may have calls that mimic GOTO. 

4. Look at the standard view for multiple calls within a sequence. BE AWARE that Sonobat sometimes identifies incorrect characteristics, analyzes strong 
harmonics instead of the primary call, and occasionally includes noise along with the primary call of interest. 


^ Adapted from Humbolt State University Bat Lab. 2011. Eastern and Western US Bat Keys. 

^ Reviewed in Fenton, M. B. 2013. Questions, ideas and tools: lessons from bat echolocation. Animal Behaviour 85, 869-879. Originally described in Griffin, D. R., 
et al. 1960. The echolocation of flying insects by bats. Animal Behaviour 8, 141-154. 

^ Fenton, M. B. 2004. Bat Natural History and Echolocation. In Brigham, R. M.,et al., eds. Bat Echolocation Research: tools, techniques, and analysis. Bat 
Gonservation International, Austin, TX. 

^ Elemans, G., et al. 2011. Superfast Muscles Set Maximum Gall Rate in Echolocating Bats. Science 333, 1885-1888. 


Appendix B - 6 



Appendix C: 

Baseline Status Indices of Detected Species: Bird Surveys 



Butte County Primary Area 


Table C-1. Proportion of points where bird species were detected and average number (SE) of birds detected at those points in 
mixedgrass prairie habitats surveyed on driving transects. Species denoted by + are listed as BLM Sensitive. Standard errors could 
not be calculated for SE values denoted with a *. 


Species 

Mixedgrass Prairie (n = 48) 

Proportion of points 
detected 

Average number detected (SE) 

American Kestrel 

0.02 

!(*) 

American Wigeon 

0.04 

2(0) 

Barn Swallow 

0.31 

1.87 (1.81) 

Brown-Headed Cowbird 

0.56 

2 (1.52) 

Brewer's Blackbird 

0.02 

!(*) 

Blue- Winged Teal 

0.06 

1.67 (0.58) 

Canada Goose 

0.29 

1.43 (0.65) 

Chestnut-Collared Longspur + 

0.4 

2.47 (1.61) 

Common Nighthawk 

0.02 

!(*) 

Eastern Kingbird 

0.06 

1.33 (0.58) 

European Starling 

0.02 

!(*) 

Great Blue Heron 

0.02 

!(*) 

Golden Eagle + 

0.02 

!(*) 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

0.52 

2.08 (0.91) 

Horned Lark 

0.48 

2.22 (1.31) 

Killdeer 

0.35 

1.24 (0.44) 

Lark Bunting 

0.98 

5.04(2.50) 

Lark Sparrow 

0.04 

1(0) 

Mallard 

0.02 

2(*) 

Mourning Dove 

0.04 

1(0) 

Northern Harrier 

0.02 

!(*) 

Red-Winged Blackbird 

0.46 

2.45 (1.65) 

Short-Eared Owl 

0.02 

!(*) 

Spotted Sandpiper 

0.02 

!(*) 

Upland Sandpiper 

0.52 

1.56 (0.92) 

Vesper Sparrow 

0.58 

1.57 (0.79) 

Western Kingbird 

0.06 

1.33 (0.58) 

Western Meadowlark 

0.92 

2.93 (1.47) 

Wilson's Phalarope 

0.15 

1.71 (1.11) 

Yellow-Headed Blackbird 

0.02 

2(*) 


Appendix C - 1 




Table C-2. Proportion of points where bird species were detected and average number (SE) of birds detected at those points in 
riparian woodland habitats surveyed on walking transects. Species denoted by + are listed as BLM Sensitive. Standard errors 
couid not be calculated for SE values denoted with a *. 


Species 

Riparian Woodland (n = 13) 

Proportion of points 
detected 

Average number detected (SE) 

American Kestrel 

0.15 

1(0) 

Bell's Vireo 

0.08 

!(*) 

Brown-Headed Cowbird 

0.54 

1.57 (1.51) 

Black-Headed Grosbeak 

0.15 

1(0) 

Brewer's Blackbird 

0.23 

2.33 (0.58) 

Brown Thrasher 

0.08 

2(*) 

Cedar Waxwing 

0.15 

1(0) 

Common Grackle 

0.23 

3.33 (2.52) 

Common Nighthawk 

0.08 

!(*) 

Eastern Kingbird 

0.46 

2.17 (0.41) 

European Starling 

0.85 

3.36 (1.29) 

Hairy Woodpecker 

0.08 

!(*) 

House Wren 

0.08 

!(*) 

Killdeer 

0.23 

1.67 (1.15) 

Lark Bunting 

0.08 

!(*) 

Loggerhead Shrike + 

0.23 

1.67 (0.58) 

Mallard 

0.15 

!(*) 

Mourning Dove 

0.92 

3.17 (2.00) 

Northern Flicker 

0.54 

1.14 (0.38) 

Orchard Oriole 

0.15 

1(0) 

Red-Headed Woodpecker + 

0.08 

!(*) 

Red-Tailed Hawk 

0.23 

1(0) 

Red-Winged Blackbird 

0.77 

2.8 (1.75) 

Turkey Vulture 

0.08 

!(*) 

Upland Sandpiper 

0.38 

1.2 (0.45) 

Vesper Sparrow 

0.15 

1.5 (0.71) 

Western Kingbird 

0.31 

1.5 (0.58) 

Western Meadowlark 

1 

2.23 (0.83) 

Willow Flycatcher 

0.08 

!(*) 

Yellow Warbler 

0.31 

1(0) 


Appendix C - 2 




Newell Primary Area 


Table C-3. Proportion of points where bird species were detected and average number (SE) of birds detected at those points in 
mixedgrass prairie habitats surveyed on driving transects. Species denoted by + are listed as BLM Sensitive. Standard errors couid 
not be calculated for SE values denoted with a *. 


Species 

Mixedgrass Prairie (n = 24) 

Proportion of points 
detected 

Average number detected (SE) 

Barn Swallow 

0.21 

2 (1.73) 

Brown-Headed Cowbird 

0.67 

1.88 (1.15) 

Canada Goose 

0.04 

2(*) 

Chestnut-Collared Longspur + 

0.08 

2(0) 

Common Grackle 

0.13 

3.33 (3.21) 

Common Nighthawk 

0.08 

1(0) 

Eastern Kingbird 

0.13 

1.33 (0.58) 

European Starling 

0.17 

3 (1.41) 

Ferruginous Hawk + 

0.042 

!(*) 

Golden Eagle + 

0.08 

1(0) 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

0.67 

2.31 (1.14) 

Horned Lark 

0.63 

2.47 (1.41) 

Killdeer 

0.13 

1.33 (0.58) 

Lark Bunting 

0.96 

6.91 (3.27) 

Lark Sparrow 

0.13 

1.33 (0.58) 

Mallard 

0.08 

1.5 (0.71) 

Mourning Dove 

0.38 

1.89 (1.05) 

Northern Harrier 

0.04 

!(*) 

Northern Rough-Winged 
Swallow 

0.13 

2(0) 

Ring-Billed Gull 

0.04 

!(*) 

Red-Winged Blackbird 

0.38 

2.22 (2.39) 

Sprague's Pipit + 

0.04 

2(*) 

Swainson's Hawk 

0.08 

1(0) 

Upland Sandpiper 

0.21 

1.4(0.55) 

Western Kingbird 

0.17 

1.25 (0.5) 

Western Meadowlark 

1 

4.5 (1.67) 

Wilson's Phalarope 

0.04 

!(*) 

Yellow-Headed Blackbird 

0.04 

2(*) 


Appendix C - 3 




Table C-4. Proportion of points where bird species were detected and average number (SE) of birds detected at those points in 
mixedgrass prairie habitats surveyed on waiking transects. Species denoted by + are listed as BLM Sensitive. Standard errors 
couid not be calculated for SE values denoted with a *. 


Species 

Mixedgrass Prairie (n = 29) 

Proportion of points 
detected 

Average number detected (SE) 

Brown-Headed Cowbird 

0.62 

2.17 (1.25) 

Bobolink + 

0.1 

1(0) 

Cliff Swallow 

0.17 

2 (1.22) 

Common Nighthawk 

0.03 

!(*) 

Common Yellowthroat 

0.07 

1(0) 

Eastern Kingbird 

0.07 

1.5 (0.71) 

European Starling 

0.03 

0(*) 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

0.72 

2.86 (1.15) 

Horned Lark 

0.55 

2.94 (2.32) 

Killdeer 

0.14 

1.75 (1.5) 

Lark Bunting 

0.79 

4 (2.73) 

Lark Sparrow 

0.03 

2(*) 

Long-Billed Curlew + 

0.03 

!(*) 

Loggerhead Shrike + 

0.03 

!(*) 

Mallard 

0.17 

1.2 (0.45) 

Merlin 

0.03 

!(*) 

Mourning Dove 

0.69 

2.2 (1.01) 

Ring-Billed Gull 

0.07 

1(0) 

Ring-Necked Pheasant 

0.17 

1.2 (0.45) 

Red-Winged Blackbird 

0.31 

1.44 (0.73) 

Upland Sandpiper 

0.62 

1.5 (0.62) 

Western Meadowlark 

1 

5.45 (1.59) 

Wild Turkey 

0.14 

1(0) 

Yellow Warbler 

0.03 

2(*) 

Yellow-Headed Blackbird 

0.07 

1(0) 


Appendix C - 4 




Fort Meade Primary Area 


Table C-5. Proportion of points where bird species were detected and average number (SE) of birds detected at those points in 
riparian woodland, mixedgrass prairie, and coniferous woodland habitats surveyed on driving transects. Species denoted by + are 
listed as BLM Sensitive. Standard errors could not be calculated for SE values denoted with a *. 


Species 

Riparian Woodland (n = 5) 

Mixedgrass Prairie (n = 12) 

Coniferous Woodland (n = 7) 

Proportion 
of points 
detected 

Average 
number 
detected (SE) 

Proportion 
of points 
detected 

Average 
number 
detected (SE) 

Proportion 
of points 
detected 

Average 
number 
detected (SE) 

American Coot 

0 

0 

0.08 

3 (*) 

0 

0 

American Crow 

0.6 

1 ( 0 ) 

0.08 

!(*) 

0.29 

1.5 ( 0 . 71 ) 

American Goldfinch 

0.2 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

American Robin 

0.6 

2 ( 1 ) 

0 

0 

0.57 

3 ( 0 . 82 ) 

American White Pelican 

0.2 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0.14 

!(*) 

Barn Swallow 

0 

0 

0.33 

1.25 ( 0 . 5 ) 

0 

0 

Black-Capped Chickadee 

0.4 

2 ( 1 . 41 ) 

0.08 

!(*) 

0.43 

1.33 ( 0 . 58 ) 

Black-Headed Grosbeak 

0.4 

1 ( 0 ) 

0 

0 

0.14 

!(*) 

Blue Jay 

0.4 

1.5 ( 0 . 71 ) 

0.08 

!(*) 

0.14 

!(*) 

Bobolink 

0 

0 

0.58 

2.71 ( 2 . 06 ) 

0.14 

!(*) 

Brewer's Blackbird 

0.2 

4 (*) 

0.25 

1 ( 0 ) 

0.14 

!(*) 

Brown-Headed Cowbird 

0 

0 

0.5 

2.83 ( 3 . 06 ) 

0.71 

1.6 ( 0 . 89 ) 

Canada Goose 

0 

0 

0.08 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Chipping Sparrow 

0.2 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0.29 

1.5 ( 0 . 71 ) 

Common Grackle 

0 

0 

0.08 

!(*) 

0.29 

1 ( 0 ) 

Dark-Eyed Junco 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.14 

!(*) 

Dusky Flycatcher 

0.2 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Eastern Kingbird 

0 

0 

0.25 

1 ( 0 ) 

0.14 

2 (*) 

European Starling 

0 

0 

0.08 

3 (*) 

0 

0 

Field Sparrow 

0.6 

1.33 ( 0 . 58 ) 

0.17 

1.5 ( 0 . 71 ) 

0.14 

2 (*) 

Great Blue Heron 

0 

0 

0.17 

1 ( 0 ) 

0 

0 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

0 

0 

0.33 

1.75 ( 0 . 96 ) 

0.29 

1 ( 0 ) 

Horned Lark 

0.2 

!(*) 

0.08 

2 (*) 

0 

0 

Killdeer 

0 

0 

0.08 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Loggerhead Shrike + 

0 

0 

0.08 

2 (*) 

0 

0 

Mallard 

0 

0 

0.08 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Mountain Bluebird 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.14 

1 (*) 

Mourning Dove 

0.4 

1.5 ( 0 . 71 ) 

0.5 

2.17 ( 1 . 17 ) 

0.29 

1 ( 0 ) 

Northern Flicker 

0.2 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0.14 

1 (*) 

Plumbeous Vireo 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.14 

1 (*) 

Ring-Billed Gull 

0 

0 

0.17 

2.5 ( 0 . 71 ) 

0 

0 

Red-Breasted Nuthatch 

0.2 

1 (*) 

0.08 

!(*) 

0.43 

1.33 ( 0 . 58 ) 

Red-Eyed Vireo 

0.2 

1 (*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 


Appendix C - 5 




Species 

Riparian Woodland (n = 5) 

Mixedgrass Prairie (n = 12) 

Coniferous Woodland (n = 7) 

Proportion 
of points 
detected 

Average 
number 
detected (SE) 

Proportion 
of points 
detected 

Average 
number 
detected (SE) 

Proportion 
of points 
detected 

Average 
number 
detected (SE) 

Red-Winged Blackbird 

0 

0 

0.75 

3.56 (2.4) 

0 

0 

Rock Pigeon 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.14 

2(*) 

Spotted Towhee 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.43 

2.67 (1.53) 

Tree Swallow 

0.4 

4(2.83) 

0.08 

2(*) 

0.14 

2(*) 

Turkey Vulture 

0 

0 

0.17 

1(0) 

0 

0 

Upland Sandpiper 

0 

0 

0.08 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Vesper Sparrow 

0 

0 

0.08 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Western Meadowlark 

0.2 

!(*) 

0.92 

2.64 (1.21) 

0.43 

3.33 (2.08) 

Western Tanager 

0.4 

1.5 (0.71) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Western Wood-Pewee 

0 

0 

0.08 

!(*) 

0 

0 

White-Breasted Nuthatch 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.14 

!(*) 

Wild Turkey 

0.2 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0.14 

!(*) 

Wilson's Snipe 

0 

0 

0.17 

1.5 (0.71) 

0 

0 

Yellow Warbler 

0.2 

4(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 


Appendix C - 6 




Lead Primary Area 


Table C-6. Proportion of points where bird species were detected and average number (SE) of birds detected at those points in 
coniferous woodiand habitats surveyed on walking transects. Species denoted by + are listed as BLM Sensitive. Standard errors 
could not be calculated for SE values denoted with a *. 


Species 

Coniferous Woodland (n = 10) 

Proportion of points 
detected 

Average number detected (SE) 

American Crow 

0.1 

!(*) 

American Robin 

0.8 

1.88 (0.83) 

Black-Capped Chickadee 

0.5 

1.4(0.89) 

Cedar Waxwing 

0.1 

!(*) 

Common Yellowthroat 

0.1 

!(*) 

Dark-Eyed Junco 

0.2 

1(0) 

Ovenbird 

0.3 

1(0) 

Red-Breasted Nuthatch 

0.6 

1.33 (0.52) 

Ruby-Crowned Kinglet 

0.9 

2.22 (1.30) 

Red-Naped Sapsucker 

0.2 

1(0) 

Song Sparrow 

0.4 

1.25 (0.5) 

Spotted Towhee 

0.1 

!(*) 

Swainson's Thrush 

0.2 

1(0) 

Tree Swallow 

0.1 

!(*) 

Yellow Warbler 

0.2 

2 (1.41) 

Yellow-Rumped Warbler 

0.5 

1.6 (0.55) 


Appendix C - 7 




Southern Black Hills Primary Area 


Table C-7. Proportion of points where bird species were detected and average number (SE) of birds detected at those points in 
coniferous woodiand, mixedgrass prairie, and riparian woodiand habitats surveyed on driving transects. Species denoted by + are 
listed as BLM Sensitive. Standard errors could not be calculated for SE values denoted with a *. 


Species 

Coniferous Woodland (n = 6) 

Mixedgrass Prairie (n = 5) 

Riparian Woodland (n = 1) 

Proportion 
of points 
detected 

Average 
number 
detected (SE) 

Proportion 
of points 
detected 

Average 
number 
detected (SE) 

Proportion 
of points 
detected 

Average 
number 
detected (SE) 

American Crow 

0.17 

!(*) 

0.2 

!(*) 

0 

0 

American Goldfinch 

0 

0 

0.2 

!(*) 

0 

0 

American Robin 

0.33 

1.5 (0.71) 

0.2 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Black-Capped 

Chickadee 

0.33 

1(0) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Brown-Headed 

Cowbird 

0.33 

1(0) 

0.4 

1(0) 

0 

0 

Cedar Waxwing 

0.17 

4(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Chipping Sparrow 

0.5 

1.67 (1.15) 

0.2 

1(*) 

0 

0 

Common Nighthawk 

0.17 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Eastern Kingbird 

0 

0 

0.2 

1(*) 

0 

0 

European Stariing 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

2(*) 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

0 

0 

0.6 

1.33 (0.58) 

0 

0 

House Wren 

0.17 

1(*) 

0.2 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Lark Bunting 

0 

0 

0.4 

1.5 (0.71) 

1 

2(*) 

Lark Sparrow 

0.67 

1.75 (1.5) 

0.2 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Lazuli Bunting 

0 

0 

0.2 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Mountain Bluebird 

0 

0 

0.4 

1.5 (0.71) 

0 

0 

Mourning Dove 

0.83 

3.4 (1.67) 

0.8 

6.25 (5.68) 

0 

0 

Northern Flicker 

0.17 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Rock Wren 

0.33 

3(0) 

0.2 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Red-Winged Blackbird 

0.17 

3(*) 

0.2 

!(*) 

1 

1(*) 

Spotted Towhee 

0.83 

1.6 (0.89) 

0.6 

1.67 (1.15) 

0 

0 

Upland Sandpiper 

0.17 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Vesper Sparrow 

0.33 

1(0) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Western Meadowlark 

1 

2.83 (1.17) 

1 

3.2 (1.48) 

1 

5(*) 

Yellow Warbler 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

!(*) 


Appendix C - 8 




Table C-8. Proportion of points where bird species were detected and average number (SE) of birds detected at those points in 
coniferous woodiand, mixedgrass prairie, and riparian woodiand habitats surveyed on walking transects. Species denoted by + 
are listed as BLM Sensitive. Standard errors could not be calculated for SE values denoted with a *. 


Species 

Coniferous Woodland (n = 14) 

Mixedgrass Prairie (n = 6) 

Riparian Woodland (n = 1) 

Proportion of 
points 
detected 

Average 
number 
detected (SE) 

Proportion 
of points 
detected 

Average 
number 
detected (SE) 

Proportion 
of points 
detected 

Average 

number 

detected 

(SE) 

American Crow 

0.07 

2(*) 

0.17 

!(*) 

0 

0 

American Goldfinch 

0.07 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

American Robin 

0.5 

1.71 (0.95) 

0.33 

1(0) 

1 

2(*) 

American White Pelican 

0.07 

!(*) 

0 

0 

1 

!(*) 

Black-Capped 

Chickadee 

0.36 

1.6 (0.55) 

0.17 

1(*) 

0 

0 

Brown-Headed Cowbird 

0.36 

2 (1.41) 

0.33 

2 (1.41) 

0 

0 

Chipping Sparrow 

0.64 

2.22 (0.94) 

0.33 

1.5 (0.71) 

0 

0 

Common Nighthawk 

0 

0 

0.17 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Eastern Kingbird 

0.14 

1(0) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Field Sparrow 

0.07 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Gray Catbird 

0.07 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

0.07 

!(*) 

0.5 

1.67 (0.58) 

0 

0 

House Wren 

0.36 

2.22 (0.45) 

0.17 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Horned Lark 

0 

0 

0.17 

3(*) 

0 

0 

Lark Sparrow 

0.64 

2.22 (0.97) 

0.5 

1.33 (0.58) 

0 

0 

Lazuli Bunting 

0 

0 

0.17 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Mountain Bluebird 

0.07 

3(*) 

0.17 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Mourning Dove 

0.57 

2.13 (0.99) 

0.67 

2.75 (0.96) 

1 

3(*) 

Northern Flicker 

0.21 

1(0) 

0.17 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Ovenbird 

0.07 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Red-Breasted Nuthatch 

0.07 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Red-Eyed Vireo 

0 

0 

0.17 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Rock Wren 

0.07 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Song Sparrow 

0.21 

1.67 (0.58) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Spotted Towhee 

0.71 

1.5 (0.97) 

0.17 

1(*) 

1 

2(*) 

Tree Swallow 

0.21 

1(0) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Upland Sandpiper 

0 

0 

0.17 

2(*) 

0 

0 

Vesper Sparrow 

0.14 

1.5 (0.71) 

0.33 

1.5 (0.71) 

0 

0 

Western Meadowlark 

0.71 

2.6 (1.58) 

1 

2.5 (1.05) 

0 

0 

Western Tanager 

0.07 

!(*) 

0.17 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Willow Flycatcher 

0.07 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Yellow Warbler 

0.21 

1(0) 

0.17 

2(*) 

1 

2(*) 


Appendix C - 9 




Pedro Primary Area 


Table C-9. Proportion of points where bird species were detected and average number (SE) of birds detected at those points in 
mixedgrass prairie, riparian woodland, and coniferous woodland habitats surveyed on driving transects. Species denoted by + are 
listed as BLM Sensitive. Standard errors could not be calculated for SE values denoted with a *. 


Species 

Mixedgrass Prairie (n = 8) 

Riparian Woodland (n = 3) 

Coniferous Woodland (n = 5) 

Proportion 
of points 
detected 

Average 
number 
detected (SE) 

Proportion 
of points 
detected 

Average 
number 
detected (SE) 

Proportion of 
points 
detected 

Average 
number 
detected (SE) 

American Crow 

0.5 

1.5 ( 1 ) 

0.67 

1 ( 0 ) 

0.4 

1 ( 0 ) 

American Kestrel 

0.13 

!(*) 

0.33 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Bald Eagle + 

0.13 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Barn Swallow 

0.38 

3 ( 2 . 65 ) 

0.33 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Black-Billed Magpie 

0.25 

1 ( 0 ) 

0 

0 

0.2 

1 (*) 

Brown-Headed Cowbird 

0.75 

5 ( 7 . 43 ) 

0.67 

1 ( 0 ) 

1 

1 . 4 ( 0 . 55 ) 

Blue Grosbeak 

0.25 

1 ( 0 ) 

0 

0 

0.4 

2 ( 1 . 41 ) 

American White Pelican 

0 

0 

0.33 

1 (*) 

0 

0 

Bobolink 

0.13 

!(*) 

0.33 

1 (*) 

0 

0 

Burrowing Owl + 

0.13 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Chipping Sparrow 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.6 

2 ( 0 ) 

Common Grackle 

0.38 

1.67 ( 0 . 58 ) 

0.33 

1 (*) 

0.2 

!(*) 

Common Yellowthroat 

0 

0 

0.33 

1 (*) 

0 

0 

Dickcissel 

0.25 

2 ( 0 ) 

0.67 

4 ( 0 ) 

0 

0 

European Starling 

0.13 

4 (*) 

0.33 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Field Sparrow 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.2 

3 (*) 

Great Blue Heron 

0.25 

1 ( 0 ) 

0 

0 

0.2 

2 (*) 

Golden Eagle + 

0.13 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

0.13 

!(*) 

0.33 

2 (*) 

0.2 

!(*) 

Horned Lark 

0.13 

6 (*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

House Wren 

0.25 

1 ( 0 ) 

0 

0 

0.2 

3 (*) 

Lark Bunting 

0.13 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Lark Sparrow 

0.13 

2 (*) 

0.67 

2 ( 1 . 41 ) 

0.6 

2 ( 1 . 73 ) 

Mourning Dove 

1 

3.88 ( 1 . 96 ) 

1 

5.33 ( 1 . 53 ) 

1 

2 . 4 ( 1 . 14 ) 

Northern Fiicker 

0.13 

!(*) 

0.33 

!(*) 

0.2 

!(*) 

N. Rough-Winged 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.2 

2 (*) 

Ring-Necked Pheasant 

0.5 

1 ( 0 ) 

0.67 

1 ( 0 ) 

0 

0 

Red-Winged Blackbird 

0.88 

2.14 ( 1 . 46 ) 

0.33 

1 (*) 

0.2 

!(*) 

Spotted Towhee 

0.13 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0.8 

2 ( 0 . 82 ) 

Tree Swallow 

0.25 

1 ( 0 ) 

0.33 

2 (*) 

0 

0 

Turkey Vulture 

0.13 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Upland Sandpiper 

0.5 

1 ( 0 ) 

0.33 

2 (*) 

0.2 

!(*) 

Western Kingbird 

0.13 

2 (*) 

0 

0 

0.2 

!(*) 

Western Meadowlark 

1 

2.88 ( 0 . 64 ) 

1 

4 (*) 

1 

2.8 ( 1 . 3 ) 

Wild Turkey 

0.25 

1.5 ( 0 . 71 ) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Yellow Warbler 

0 

0 

0.33 

!(*) 

0 

0 


Appendix C - 10 




Table C-10. Proportion of points where bird species were detected and average number (SE) of birds detected at those points 
in mixedgrass prairie and coniferous woodland habitats surveyed on walking transects. Species denoted by + are iisted as 
BLM Sensitive. Standard errors could not be calculated for SE values denoted with a *. 


Species 

Mixedgrass Prairie (n = 7) 

Coniferous Woodland (n = 23) 

Proportion of 
points detected 

Average number 
detected (SE) 

Proportion of 
points detected 

Average number 
detected (SE) 

American Crow 

0.71 

1.6 (0.89) 

0.57 

1.230769 

American Goldfinch 

0 

0 

0.26 

2 (1.55) 

American Robin 

0 

0 

0.09 

1(0) 

American White Pelican 

0.14 

2(*) 

0 

0 

Black-Billed Magpie 

0.29 

1.5 (0.71) 

0.39 

1.44 (0.53) 

Black-Capped Chickadee 

0.14 

!(*) 

0.3 

1.29 (0.49) 

Blue Grosbeak 

0.43 

1.33 (0.58) 

0 

0 

Blue Jay 

0 

0 

0.04 

!(*) 

Brown-Headed Cowbird 

0.57 

1.25 (0.5) 

0.91 

3.33 (3.51) 

Brown Thrasher 

0 

0 

0.13 

1.33 (0.58) 

Cedar Waxwing 

0 

0 

0.09 

1.5 (0.71) 

Chipping Sparrow 

0.14 

!(*) 

0.09 

1(0) 

Common Grackle 

0.14 

!(*) 

0.04 

2(*) 

Eastern Kingbird 

0.14 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Field Sparrow 

0.86 

1.33 (0.82) 

0.74 

1.94 (1.09) 

Golden Eagle + 

0 

0 

0.09 

1(0) 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

0.14 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Great Blue Heron 

0 

0 

0.04 

2(*) 

House Wren 

0 

0 

0.09 

1.5 (0.71) 

Killdeer 

0.14 

2(*) 

0 

0 

Lark Sparrow 

0.86 

3.67 (1.97) 

0.09 

2.5 (1.54) 

Long-Billed Curlew + 

0.14 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Merlin 

0 

0 

0.04 

!(*) 

Mourning Dove 

0.86 

4.83 (3.06) 

0.96 

2.91 (1.69) 

Northern Flicker 

0.14 

4(*) 

0.04 

!(*) 

Northern Rough-Winged 

0.14 

2(*) 

0.22 

2.2 (1.64) 

Orchard Oriole 

0 

0 

0.04 

2(*) 

Ring-Necked Pheasant 

0.14 

!(*) 

0.09 

1(0) 

Red-Winged Blackbird 

0.14 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Rock Wren 

0 

0 

0.09 

1(0) 

Spotted Towhee 

0.29 

1.5 (0.71) 

0.74 

1.82 (0.73) 

Turkey Vulture 

0 

0 

0.04 

3(*) 

Upland Sandpiper 

0 

0 

0.09 

1(0) 

Western Kingbird 

0 

0 

0.04 

!(*) 

Western Meadowlark 

0.71 

2.4 (0.89) 

0.39 

1.67 (0.71) 

Yellow-Breasted Chat 

0 

0 

0.13 

1.33 (0.58) 

Yellow Warbler 

0 

0 

0.09 

1.5 (0.71) 


Appendix C - 11 




Mission Ridge Primary Area 


Table C-11. Proportion of points where bird species were detected and average number (SE) of birds detected at those points 
in mixedgrass prairie and riparian woodland habitats surveyed on driving transects. Species denoted by + are listed as BLM 
Sensitive. Standard errors could not be calculated for SE values denoted with a *. 


Species 

Mixedgrass Prairie (n = 23) 

Riparian Woodland (n = 1) 

Proportion of 
points detected 

Average number 
detected (SE) 

Proportion of 
points detected 

Average number 
detected (SE) 

Barn Swallow 

0.13 

1.67 (1.15) 

1 

!(*) 

Bell's Vireo 

0 

0 

1 

!(*) 

Bobolink 

0.17 

1.5 (0.58) 

0 

0 

Brown-headed 

Cowbird 

0.91 

3.81 (2.86) 

0 

0 

Brown Thrasher 

0 

0 

1 

3(*) 

Burrowing Owl + 

0.04 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Common Crackle 

0.13 

1.67 (0.58) 

0 

0 

Common Nighthawk 

0.04 

!(*) 

1 

1(*) 

Dickcissel 

0.65 

2.2 (1.37) 

1 

1(*) 

Eastern Kingbird 

0.04 

!(*) 

1 

1(*) 

Gadwall 

0.04 

2(*) 

0 

0 

Great Blue Heron 

0.04 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

0.43 

1.6 (0.70) 

0 

0 

Horned Lark 

0.43 

1.8 (1.23) 

0 

0 

Killdeer 

0.09 

1(0) 

0 

0 

Lark Bunting 

0.96 

4.01 (2.29) 

0 

0 

Long-Billed Curlew + 

0.09 

1(0) 

0 

0 

Mallard 

0.26 

2.67 (2.73) 

1 

2(*) 

Mourning Dove 

0.43 

2.8 (2.86) 

1 

2(*) 

Northern Pintail 

0.04 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Orchard Oriole 

0.04 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Ring-Necked Pheasant 

0.35 

1.25 (0.46) 

1 

1(*) 

Red-Winged Blackbird 

0.74 

2.65 (1.93) 

1 

12 (*) 

Spotted Towhee 

0 

0 

1 

!(*) 

Upland Sandpiper 

0.48 

1.36 (0.92) 

1 

2(*) 

Western Kingbird 

0.04 

!(*) 

0 

0 

Western Meadowlark 

0.96 

3.41 (1.56) 

0 

0 

Yellow Warbler 

0 

0 

1 

1(*) 


Appendix C - 12 




Two Rivers Primary Area 


Table C-12. Proportion of points where bird species were detected and average number (SE) of birds detected at those points in 
coniferous woodiand, badlands, riparian woodland, and mixedgrass prairie habitats surveyed on walking transects. Species 
denoted by + are iisted as BLM Sensitive. Standard errors could not be calculated for SE values denoted with a *. 


Species 

Coniferous Woodiand 
(n = 14) 

Badiands 
(n = 10) 

Riparian Woodiand 
(n = l) 

Mixedgrass Prairie 
(n = 2) 

Proportion 
of points 
detected 

Average 

number 

detected 

(SE) 

Proportion 
of points 
detected 

Average 

number 

detected 

(SE) 

Proportion 
of points 
detected 

Average 

number 

detected 

(SE) 

Proportion 
of points 
detected 

Average 

number 

detected 

(SE) 

American Crow 

0.29 

1 ( 0 ) 

0.2 

1.5 ( 0 . 71 ) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

American Goidfinch 

0.14 

1.5 ( 0 . 71 ) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

American Kestrei 

0.07 

!(*) 

0.1 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

American Robin 

0 

0 

0.1 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Biack-Biiied Magpie 

0.14 

1.5 ( 0 . 71 ) 

0.4 

2 ( 0 . 82 ) 

1 

1 (*) 

1 

4 ( 2 . 83 ) 

Biue-Gray Gnatcatcher + 

0.07 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Brown-Headed Cowbird 

0.71 

3 ( 1 . 56 ) 

0.7 

4.86 ( 4 . 95 ) 

1 

3 (*) 

0.5 

2 (*) 

Biue Grosbeak 

0.36 

1 . 4 ( 0 . 89 ) 

0.1 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Biue Jay 

0.07 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Brown Thrasher 

0.07 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Canyon Wren 

0.07 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Cedar Waxwing 

0.07 

7 (*) 

0.1 

3 (*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Chipping Sparrow 

0.07 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Common Nighthawk 

0 

0 

0.1 

1 (*) 

0 

0 

0.5 

1 (*) 

Eastern Biuebird 

0.07 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Eastern Kingbird 

0.07 

!(*) 

0.1 

1 (*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Fieid Sparrow 

0.86 

1.83 ( 0 . 72 ) 

0.8 

1.38 ( 0 . 52 ) 

1 

1 (*) 

1 

1 ( 0 ) 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

2 ( 0 ) 

Horned Lark 

0 

0 

0.1 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Kiiideer 

0.07 

!(*) 

0.1 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Lark Bunting 

0.14 

1 ( 0 ) 

0.2 

13 ( 15 . 56 ) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Lark Sparrow 

1 

2.71 ( 1 . 38 ) 

1 

2.2 ( 1 . 03 ) 

0 

0 

0.5 

1 (*) 

Mourning Dove 

0.93 

2.23 ( 1 . 48 ) 

1 

2.3 ( 0 . 95 ) 

1 

2 (*) 

1 

1.5 ( 0 . 71 ) 

Northern Rough- 
Winged Swaiiow 

0.21 

2.33 ( 1 . 53 ) 

0.7 

1.29 ( 0 . 76 ) 

0 

0 

0.5 

3 (*) 

Rock Wren 

0.29 

1.75 ( 0 . 5 ) 

0.1 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0.5 

2 (*) 

Red-Winged Biackbird 

0.07 

4 (*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Spotted Towhee 

0.5 

1.86 ( 1 . 07 ) 

0.4 

1.25 ( 0 . 5 ) 

1 

1 (*) 

1 

1 ( 0 ) 

Upiand Sandpiper 

0.14 

1 ( 0 ) 

0 

0 

1 

2 (*) 

0.5 

1 (*) 

Western Kingbird 

0 

0 

0.1 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Western Meadowiark 

1 

2.71 ( 1 . 20 ) 

0.9 

3.67 ( 1 . 5 ) 

1 

6 (*) 

1 

3.5 ( 0 . 71 ) 

Yeiiow-Breasted Chat 

0 

0 

0.1 

!(*) 

0 

0 

0 

0 


Appendix C - 13 




Appendix D 


Baseline Status Indices of Detected Species: Small Mammal Surveys 



Butte County Primary Area 


Table D-1. Proportion of traplines each species was captured on within mixedgrass prairie, barren, herbaceous wetland, and shrubland habitats. 


Species 

Mixedgrass Prairie (n =6) 

Barren (n = 1) 

Herbaceous Wetland (n = 1) 

Shrubland (n = 3) 

Shrew Spp. 

0 

0 

0 

0.33 

Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel 

0.17 

0 

0 

0.33 

Meadow Vole 

0 

0 

1 

0 

Northern Grasshopper Mouse 

0.17 

0 

0 

0.33 

Deer Mouse 

0.33 

1 

0 

1 

Western Harvest Mouse 

0 

0 

0 

0.33 


Table D-2. Proportion of museum speciai (MS), Sherman (SH), Victor (V), and pitfall (P) traps where small mammal species were detected within mixedgrass prairie, barren, 
herbaceous wetland, and shrubland habitats. Sampie sizes of traps are shown in parentheses. 


Species 

Mixedgrass Prairie (n =6) 

MS SH V P 

(n=164) (n=177) (n=168) (n=180) 

Barren (n = 1) 

MS SH V P 

(n=28) (n=29) (n=27) (n=30) 

Herbaceous Wetland (n =1) 

MS SH V P 

(n=26) (n=30) (n=27) (n=29) 

Shrubland (n =3) 

MS SH V P 

(n=75) (n=87) (n=86) (n=90) 

Deer Mouse 

0.04 

<0.01 

0.04 

0 

0.07 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.08 

0.01 

0.06 

0 

Meadow vole 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.04 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Northern 

Grasshopper 

Mouse 

<0.01 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.01 

0 

0 

0 

Thirteen- 
lined Ground 
Squirrel 

<0.01 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.01 

0 

0 

0 

Shrew spp. 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.01 

Western 

Harvest 

Mouse 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.01 

0 

0 


Appendix D-1 







Newell Primary Area 


Table D-3. Proportion of traplines each species was captured on within mixedgrass prairie habitat. 


Species 

Mixedgrass Prairie (n = 6) 

Deer Mouse 

1 

Western Harvest Mouse 

0.17 

Plains Harvest Mouse 

0.17 


Table D-4. Proportion of museum speciai (MS), Sherman (SH), Victor (V), and pitfall (P) traps where small mammal species were detected within mixedgrass prairie habitat. 
Sample sizes of traps are shown in parentheses. 


Species 

Mixedgrass Prairie (n = 6) 

MS SH VP 

(n=147) (n=152) (n=151) (n=158) 

Deer Mouse 

0.07 

0.01 

0.01 

0 

Western Harvest Mouse 

0.01 

0 

0 

0 

Plains Harvest Mouse 

0 

0 

0.01 

0 


Appendix D - 2 





Fort Meade Primary Area 

Table D-5. Proportion of traplines each species was captured on within mixedgrass prairie, herbaceous wetland, deciduous woodland, and coniferous woodland habitats. 


Species 

Mixedgrass Prairie (n = 1) 

Herbaceous Wetiand (n = 1) 

Deciduous Woodiand (n = 2) 

Coniferous Woodiand (n = 1) 

Deer Mouse 

1 

1 

1 

1 

White-footed Mouse 

0 

0 

1 

1 

Prairie Voie 

1 

1 

0.5 

0 

Meadow Voie 

0 

1 

0.5 

0 


Table D-6. Proportion of museum speciai (MS), Sherman (SH), Victor (V), and pitfall (P) traps where small mammal species were detected within mixedgrass prairie, herbaceous 
wetland, deciduous woodland, and coniferous woodland habitats. Sample sizes of traps are shown in parentheses. 


Species 

Mixedgrass Prairie (n = 1) 

MS SH V P 

(n=22) (n=29) (n=28) (n=30) 

Herbaceous Wetiand (n = 1) 

MS SH V P 

(n=24) (n=26) (n=25) (n=29) 

Deciduous Woodiand (n = 2) 

MS SH V P 

(n=48) (n=56) (n=48) (n=60) 

Coniferous Woodiand (n = 1) 

MS SH V P 

(n=22) (n=27) (n=25) (n=30) 

Deer Mouse 

0.09 

0.14 

0.11 

0 

0.08 

0 

0 

0 

0.12 

0.02 

0.04 

0 

0 

0 

0.04 

0 

White-footed Mouse 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.27 

0.11 

0.12 

0 

0.09 

0 

0 

0 

Prairie Voie 

0.41 

0.03 

0.07 

0.03 

0.04 

0.04 

0 

0 

0.02 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Meadow Voie 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.04 

0.04 

0 

0.07 

0 

0.02 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 


Appendix D - 3 







Lead Primary Area 


Table D-7 Proportion of traplines each species was captured on within coniferous woodland, wet meadow, and woody wetland habitats. 


Species 

Coniferous Woodland (n = 3) 

Wet Meadow (n = 1) 

Woody Wetland (n = 1) 

Masked Shrew 

0.33 

1 

1 

Red-backed Vole 

1 

0 

0 

Long-tailed Vole 

0.67 

0 

0 

Meadow Vole 

0.67 

1 

1 

Deer Mouse 

0.67 

0 

1 

White-footed Mouse 

0 

0 

1 

Least Chipmunk 

0.33 

0 

0 


Table D-8. Proportion of museum speciai (MS), Sherman (SH), Victor (V), and pitfall (P) traps where small mammal species were detected within coniferous woodland, wet 
meadow, and woody wetland habitats. Sample sizes of traps are shown in parentheses. 


Species 

Coniferous Woodland (n = 3) 

MS SH VP 

(n=82) (n=86) (n=85) (n=90) 

Wet Meadow (n = 1) 

MS SH V P 

(n=24) (n=30) (n=26) (n=30) 

Woody Wetland (n = 1) 

MS SH VP 

(n=27) (n=30) (n=30) (n=30) 

Masked Shrew 

0 

0 

0.01 

0 

0.04 

0 

0 

0.07 

0.07 


0.03 

0 

Red-backed Vole 

0.09 

0.03 

0.04 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Long-tailed Vole 

0.04 

0 

0.04 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Meadow Vole 

0.02 

0 

0 

0 

0.12 

0 

0.08 

0 

0.04 

0.03 

0.07 

0 

Deer Mouse 

0.04 

0.01 

0.01 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.19 

0.10 

0.03 

0 

White-footed Mouse 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.04 

0 

0 

0 

Least Chipmunk 

0 

0 

0.01 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 


Appendix D - 4 






Southern Black Hills Primary Area 


Table D-9. Proportion of traplines each species was captured on within mixedgrass prairie and coniferous woodland habitats. 


Species 

Mixedgrass Prairie (n = 3) 

Coniferous Woodiand (n = 2) 

Hispid Pocket Mouse 

0.66 

0 

Prairie Voie 

0.33 

0.5 

Deer Mouse 

0 

1 

Piains Harvest Mouse 

0.33 

0 


Table D-10. Proportion of museum special (MS), Sherman (SH), Victor (V), and pitfall (P) traps where small mammal species were detected within mixedgrass prairie and 
coniferous woodland habitats. Sample sizes of traps are shown in parentheses. 


Species 

Mixedgrass Prairie (n = 3) 

MS SH VP 

(n=83) (n=84) (n=83) (n=84) 

Coniferous Woodiand (n = 2) 

MS SH V P 

(n=57) (n=57) (n=57) (n=57) 

Hispid Pocket Mouse 

0 

0 

0.02 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Prairie Voie 

0.01 

0 

0 

0 

0.02 

0 

0 

0 

Deer Mouse 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.11 

0.05 

0.05 

0 

Piains Harvest Mouse 

0.01 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 


Appendix D - 5 







Pedro Primary Area 


Table D-11. Proportion of traplines each species was captured on within shrubland, coniferous woodiand, and mixedgrass prairie habitats. 


Species 

Shrubland (n = 2) 

Coniferous Woodland (n = 2) 

Mixedgrass Prairie (n = 1) 

Prairie Vole 

0.5 

0 

1 

Deer Mouse 

1 

1 

1 

White-footed Mouse 

0.5 

1 

1 

Plains Harvest Mouse 

0 

0 

1 


Table D-12. Proportion of museum special (MS), Sherman (SH), Victor (V), and pitfall (P) traps where small mammal species were detected within shrubland, coniferous 
woodland, and mixedgrass prairie habitats. Sampie sizes of traps are shown in parentheses. 


Species 

Shrubland (n = 2) 

MS SH V P 

(n=52) (n=53) (n=53) (n=60) 

Coniferous woodland (n = 2) 

MS SH V P 

(n=53) (n=59) (n=53) (n=60) 

Mixedgrass prairie (n = 1) 

MS SH V P 

(n=23) (n=25) (n=22) (n=30) 

Prairie Vole 

0.04 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.05 

0 

Deer Mouse 

0.08 

0.02 

0.04 

0 

0.08 

0 

0.04 

0 

0.04 

0 

0 

0 

White-footed 

Mouse 

0.02 

0 

0 

0 

0.11 

0.02 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.05 

0 

Plains Harvest 
Mouse 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.04 

0 

0 

0 


Appendix D - 6 






Mission Ridge Primary Area 


Table D-13. Proportion of traplines each species was captured on within mixedgrass prairie, barren, and shrubland habitats. 


Species 

Mixedgrass Prairie (n = 3) 

Barren (n = 1) 

Shrubland (n = 1) 

Least Shrew 

0.33 

0 

0 

Deer Mouse 

0.67 

1 

0 

White-footed Mouse 

0.33 

1 

1 


Table D-14. Proportion of museum speciai (MS), Sherman (SH), Victor (V), and pitfall (P) traps where small mammal species were detected within mixedgrass prairie, barren, 
and shrubland habitats. Sample sizes of traps are shown in parentheses. 


Species 

Mixedgrass Prairie (n = 3) 

MS SH VP 

(n=75) (n=85) (n=85) (n=90) 

Barren (n = 1) 

MS SH V P 

(n=24) (n=30) (n=30) (n=29) 

Shrubland (n = 1) 

MS SH VP 

(n=29) (n=28) (n=30) (n=30) 

Least Shrew 

0 

0 

0 

0.01 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Deer Mouse 

0.07 

0 

0.06 

0 

0.33 

0.03 

0.03 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

White- 

footed 

Mouse 

0 

0.01 

0 

0 

0.04 

0 

0 

0 

0.03 

0 

0.03 

0.03 


Appendix D - 7 





Two Rivers Primary Area 


Table D-15. Proportion of traplines each species was captured on within barren, coniferous woodiand, and mixedgrass prairie habitats. 


Species 

Barren (n = 1) 

Coniferous Woodland (n = 2) 

Mixedgrass Prairie (n = 2) 

Hispid Pocket Mouse 

0 

0.5 

0.5 

Prairie Vole 

0 

0.5 

0 

Deer Mouse 

1 

1 

1 

White-footed Mouse 

1 

0.5 

0 

Plains Harvest Mouse 

1 

0 

0 


Table D-16. Proportion of museum speciai (MS), Sherman (SH), Victor (V), and pitfall (P) traps where small mammal species were detected within barren, coniferous 
woodland, and mixedgrass prairie habitats. Sample sizes of traps are shown in parentheses. 


Species 

Barren (n = 1) 

MS SH V P 

(n=25) (n=29) (n=27) (n=30) 

Coniferous Woodland (n = 2) 

MS SH V P 

(n=56) (n=60) (n=59) (n=60) 

Mixedgrass Prairie (n = 2) 

MS SH V P 

(n=55) (n=58) (n=55) (n=60) 

Hispid Pocket Mouse 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.02 

0 

0 

0 

0.02 

0.02 

0 

Prairie Vole 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.02 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Deer Mouse 

0.04 

0 

0.04 

0 

0.12 

0 

0.03 

0 

0.04 

0 

0.02 

0 

White-footed Mouse 

0.08 

0 

0 

0 

0.02 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Plains Harvest Mouse 

0 

0 

0.04 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 


Appendix D - 8 







Appendix E 

Baseline Status Indices of Detected Species: Bat Surveys 



Table E-1. Species definitively identified (Y) in a given month with acoustic recordings made on long-term passive uitrasonic bat detectors in 3 primary survey areas. 


Detector 

Species 

Oct, 

2013 

Nov, 

2013 

Dec, 

2013 

Jan, 

2014 

Feb, 

2014 

Mar, 

2014 

Apr, 

2014 

May, 

2014 

Jun, 

2014 

Jul, 

2014 

Aug, 

2014 

Battle Creek, 
Butte County Primary 
Area, 

Mixed Grass Prairie 

Eastern Red Bat 










Y 

Y 

Floary Bat 








Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Silver-haired Bat 








Y 

Y 

Y 


Little Brown Myotis 








Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

South 

Moreau River 
Bridge, 

Butte County Primary 
Area, 

Riparian Woodland 

Silver-haired Bat 








Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Western Small-footed Myotis 








Y 


Y 


Little Brown Myotis 








Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Jug Creek, 

Newell Primary Area, 
Mixed Grass Prairie 

Big Brown Bat 










B 


Floary Bat 









Y 

B 


Silver-haired Bat 








Y 




Western Small-footed Myotis 









Y 

B 


Little Brown Myotis 








Y 

Y 

B 

B 

Bismarck Bridge, 
Newell Primary Area, 
Riparian Woodland 

Big Brown Bat 








n 

n 

B 


Red bat 










B 


Floary Bat 









B 



Silver-haired Bat 







B 

B 

B 


B 

Western Small-footed Myotis 







B 

B 

B 

B 

B 

Little Brown Myotis 








B 

B 

B 

B 

Fort Meade 
Reservoir, Fort 
Meade Primary Area, 
Mixed Grass Prairie 

Big Brown Bat 

Y 






B 

B 

B 

B 

B 

Eastern Red Bat 

Y 









B 

B 

Silver-haired Bat 







H 

H 




Western Small-footed Myotis 







B 


B 

B 

B 

Little Brown Myotis 

Y 






B 

y 

■ 

B 

y 


Appendix E-1 




























Table E-2. Total bat passes, number of nights bats were detected, average and range of passes for nights bats were detected 
each month ultrasonic detectors were deployed. 


Detector Location 

Date 

Total No. 
Bat Passes 

No. Nights 
with Detections 

Average Passes 
Per Night (SE) 

Range of Passes 
Per Night 

Battle Creek, Butte County 
Primary Area, 

Mixed Grass Prairie 

Oct, 2013 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Nov, 2013 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Dec, 2013 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Jan, 2014 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Feb, 2014 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Mar, 2014 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Apr, 2014 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

May, 2014 

691 

23 

30.0 (55.4) 

1-264 

Jun, 2014 

361 

26 

13.9 (15.4) 

1-62 

Jul, 2014 

421 

30 

14.0 (10.4) 

1-54 

Aug, 2014 

73 

8 

9.1 (6.3) 

5-23 

South Moreau Bridge, 
Butte County Primary 
Area, 

Riparian Woodland 

Oct, 2013 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Nov, 2013 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Dec, 2013 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Jan, 2014 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Feb, 2014 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Mar, 2014 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Apr, 2014 

3 

1 

3.00 (*) 

3-3 

May, 2014 

91 

22 

4.1 (2.5) 

1-11 

Jun, 2014 

67 

22 

3.1 (3.3) 

1-16 

Jul, 2014 

238 

27 

8.8 (6.7) 

2-36 

Aug, 2014 

64 

8 

8.0 (4.7) 

3-17 

Jug Creek, 

Newell Primary Area, 
Mixed Grass Prairie 

Oct, 2013 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Nov, 2013 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Dec, 2013 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Jan, 2014 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Feb, 2014 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Mar, 2014 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Apr, 2014 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

May, 2014 

84 

16 

5.3 (4.6) 

1-16 

Jun, 2014 

168 

25 

6.7 (4.9) 

1-19 

Jul, 2014 

219 

30 

7.3 (5.9) 

1-24 

Aug, 2014 

39 

8 

4.9 (2.9) 

1-10 







Detector Location 

Date 

Total No. 
Bat Passes 

No. Nights 
with Detections 

Average Passes 
Per Night (SE) 

Range of Passes 
Per Night 

Bismarck Bridge, 
Neweii Primary Area, 
Riparian Woodiand 

Oct, 2013 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Nov, 2013 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Dec, 2013 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Jan, 2014 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Feb, 2014 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Mar, 2014 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Apr, 2014 

14 

5 

2.8 (1.9) 

1-6 

May, 2014 

313 

28 

11.2 (13.2) 

1-66 

Jun, 2014 

232 

28 

8.3 (4.9) 

2-21 

Jui, 2014 

551 

32 

17.2 (9.3) 

2-37 

Aug, 2014 

107 

11 

9.7 (4.0) 

5-18 

Fort Meade Reservoir, 
Fort Meade Primary Area, 
Mixed Grass Prairie 

Oct, 2013 

119 

6 

19.8 (25.7) 

1-69 

Nov, 2013 

18 

5 

3.6 (3.7) 

1-10 

Dec, 2013 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Jan, 2014 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Feb, 2014 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Mar, 2014 

0 

0 

0(0) 

0-0 

Apr, 2014 

1,173 

14 

83.8 (121.6) 

1-458 

May, 2014 

5,616 

29 

193.7 (188.1) 

1-698 

Jun, 2014 

4,542 

28 

162.2 (210.5) 

1-933 

Jui, 2014 

6,132 

31 

197.8 (263.5) 

17-1282 

Aug, 2014 

541 

11 

49.2 (77.4) 

1-276 


Appendix E - 3 






Appendix F 

Baseline Status Indices of Detected Species: 
Amphibian Calling Surveys 



Butte County Primary Area 


Table F-1. Proportion of points where species were detected and average estimated number of individuals at points where 
they were detected. Species denoted with + are BLM Sensitive. 


Species 

Proportion of Points 
Detected (N) 

Average Number of Individuals 
Estimated at Points Detected (SE) 

Boreal Chorus Frog 

0.87 (34) 

12.0 (17.8) 

Northern Leopard Frog 

0.23 (9) 

1.3 (0.5) 

Plains Spadefoot + 

0.15 (6) 

3.0 (1.3) 


Newell Primary Area 


Table F-2. Proportion of points where species were detected and average estimated number of individuals at points where 
they were detected. 


Species 

Proportion of Points 
Detected (N) 

Average Number of Individuals 
Estimated at Points Detected (SE) 

Boreal Chorus Frog 

1.00(12) 

9.7 (8.5) 


Fort Meade Primary Area 


Table F-3. Proportion of points where species were detected and average estimated number of individuals at points where 
they were detected. 


Species 

Proportion of Points 
Detected (N) 

Average Number of Individuals 
Estimated at Points Detected (SE) 

Boreal Chorus Frog 

0.44 (8) 

4.1 (2.3) 

Northern Leopard Frog 

0.06 (1) 

2(*) 


Mission Ridge Primary Area 


Table F-4. Proportion of points where species were detected and average estimated number of individuals at points where 
they were detected. 


Species 

Proportion of Points 
Detected (N) 

Average Number of Individuals 
Estimated at Points Detected (SE) 

Woodhouse's Toad 

0.17 (5) 

2.6 (1.1) 

Boreal Chorus Frog 

0.69 (20) 

5.0 (4.5) 


Appendix F - 1 


















Two Rivers Primary Area 


Table F-5. Proportion of points where species were detected and average estimated number of individuals at points where 
they were detected. Species denoted with + are BLM Sensitive. 


Species 

Proportion of Points 
Detected (N) 

Average Number of Individuals 
Estimated at Points Detected (SE) 

Boreal Chorus Frog 

0.88 (22) 

3.1 (2.1) 

Great Plains Toad + 

0.76 (19) 

4.5 (2.6) 

Woodhouse's Toad 

0.32 (8) 

2.8 (2.7) 

Plains Spadefoot + 

0.48 (12) 

7.3 (5.0) 


Appendix F - 2
Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Distribution and status of bird, small mammal, reptile, and amphibian species, South Dakota Field Office - BLM"

See other formats
